PRIVATE BUSINESS

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill (By  Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
	To be further considered on Tuesday 26 March.

Oral Answers to Questions

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Aerospace Industry

Doug Naysmith: What steps she is taking to encourage research and development in the UK aerospace industry.

Andrew Turner: If she will make a statement on the future of the aerospace industry.

Patricia Hewitt: The Government are taking a number of steps to support and improve the competitiveness of the United Kingdom aerospace industry. These include providing substantial launch investment and we are providing support of £20 million a year through the civil aeronautics research programme.

Doug Naysmith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I, however, press her on the funding of CARAD—the civil aircraft research and technology demonstration? The aerospace industry, which has been identified by the Government as a priority area for investment and encouragement, depends heavily on research. Yet UK public investment in research, particularly in aerospace research and development, has decreased significantly over the past decade. Funding through the CARAD programme in particular has fallen by 80 per cent. over that period. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to review that programme and commit more resources to aerospace research and development?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point about the importance of research and development in this world-class sector. I am looking at whether it is possible to do more through the CARAD programme and others to support research and development in aerospace.
	Aerospace companies will benefit significantly from the Chancellor's proposal to extend the research and development tax credits from the small and medium-sized enterprises, to which it already applies, to larger companies. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will take account of my hon. Friend's views in reaching the public spending settlement.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for agreeing to visit the Isle of Wight, a visit that is eagerly anticipated by former staff of GKN Westland and the many others on the island who work in the aerospace industry. Can the Secretary of State give some hope to those who still have jobs in the industry that those jobs will be secure in the future, and reassure them that help will be given to attract new jobs to the island for the benefit of the 650 who have lost their jobs at Westland?

Patricia Hewitt: I should like to extend my sympathy to the hon. Gentleman's constituents who lost their jobs at Westland and to their families. Talking to a number of business leaders and trade unionists in the aerospace sector, I find that although the sector is going through a very difficult time, exacerbated by the effects of 11 September, the medium-term outlook is very bright as demand recovers in the world economy, and particularly as the impact of the Lockheed joint strike fighter contract is felt. I look forward to my visit to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and believe that the medium and longer term outlook for workers and companies in the aerospace sector is bright.

Kevin Barron: I thank my right hon. Friend for the support that the Government have given, both directly—and, through Yorkshire Forward, indirectly—to the investment in my constituency for an advanced manufacturing aerospace research and development project between Boeing and Sheffield university. I hope that we can get the same support for the neighbouring manufacturing companies that are working on aerospace projects in my constituency to make sure that we build from research and development into the most advanced aerospace manufacturing base not only in the United Kingdom but potentially in the world.

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I was delighted to hear Tom Bell, the chief executive of Boeing in the UK, say recently that in order for Boeing to be a world-class company it needed to be in partnership with the United Kingdom's world-class universities. Those partnerships between industry and our science base will ensure that our aerospace companies remain at the forefront of innovation and are thus in the competitive position to take advantage of the upturn in demand that will quite clearly come through in the world economy.

Richard Page: Will the Secretary of State place in the Library details of the support that the Government give to small businesses in the supply chain for this most important industry—particularly for project and development work and enabling them to quote for projects? Will she include comparisons relating to what our European competitor countries do for their small businesses?

Patricia Hewitt: I shall be happy to provide a note along those lines. I remind the hon. Gentleman that through programmes such as the SMART awards, through the research and development tax credits for small and medium-sized companies and through partnerships with the universities, we are already doing a great deal. Over the next year centres of manufacturing excellence will be established in every region of the country, along with programmes like the Centre for Aerospace Innovation in the north-west of England. All that will help to ensure that the smaller companies in the supply chain, in aerospace in particular and in manufacturing in general, have the chance to go on increasing their productivity and sales and continuing to provide good employment.

Paddy Tipping: Companies such as Rolls-Royce, which has a strong base in the east midlands, have suffered badly since 11 September, but in the long term they have the opportunity of a very good future. That will come about only if they are able to compete in research and development for the future against countries like Canada.
	In my right hon. Friend's discussions with the Chancellor, will she point out the real need for investment in research and development?

Patricia Hewitt: I continue to make the case not only for an increase in our investment in the science base but for an increase in both public sector and private sector investment in research and development and in knowledge and technology transfer. Next month I shall open the centre for manufacturing excellence in the east midlands. That will benefit aerospace and manufacturing companies in the region.
	We have, of course, examined the Canadian scheme to which my hon. Friend referred. It is always helpful to see what we can learn from other countries' initiatives. However, it is worth pointing out that, according to the latest figures, business research and development investment is lower in Canada than in the United Kingdom.

Lady Hermon: As I shall be visiting Shorts-Bombardier Aerospace in Belfast tomorrow afternoon, could the Secretary of State outline what measures are being taken to encourage research and development there?

Patricia Hewitt: I have had several discussions with executives and trade unionists at Shorts-Bombardier since I became Secretary of State. That company, like others in the sector, will benefit from the tax credit for R and D from larger companies as well as from the support that we can give, for instance, through the Export Credits Guarantee Department. We shall continue to support the company, and many others across the country, in ensuring that they have the skills, technology and access to export markets that they need to continue to succeed and to provide good jobs in high-technology manufacturing.

Fairness At Work

Rob Marris: What action she is taking in respect of her policy on fairness at work.

Alan Johnson: Since 1997 the Government have shown their commitment to minimum standards and fairness in the workplace with the introduction of the national minimum wage, paid holidays and many other measures. We are building on that commitment in our second term—for example, by introducing new family-friendly rights such as paid paternity leave and measures to support flexible working, and new protections from discrimination in the areas of age, religion, and sexual orientation. We are about to review key parts of the Employment Relations Act 1999, to revise Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 protections and to implement the information and consultation directive. That is a substantial agenda to deliver the Government's commitment to fairness at work.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to the Minister for reminding the House of the great steps that the Government have taken in their goal of modernising labour relations in this country and of the welcome steps that they propose to take to further that modernisation, leading to greater protection for employees and a better work-life balance.
	Does the Minister agree, however, that this country remains in breach of some of its obligations under some International Labour Organisation and other labour relations conventions to which the United Kingdom is a signatory? If so, by what date do the Government propose to comply with those treaty obligations?

Alan Johnson: No, I do not accept my hon. Friend's point. The UK has ratified all the ILO core conventions. In those and other ratified conventions we work across Government to ensure that we are meeting all the necessary requirements. We report to the ILO accordingly. We also keep all the conventions under review and try to increase ratifications as appropriate. The ILO itself reviews the application of conventions in member states as part of a process of peer review and continuous improvement in which we play a full part.

Vincent Cable: Is the Minister not even mildly embarrassed when such modernising, reform-minded trade unionists as the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress describe the Government's employment policies as "bloody stupid"? More specifically, have Ministers met to reconcile their differences about contracted-out public services in view of the growing concern among not only trade unionists but responsible employers about the way in which training, pensions and holiday pay are being eroded by cowboys in industry?

Alan Johnson: As the Minister responsible for employment relations, I feel that it is a sign of my abject failure that I have made the TUC speak to the Conservative party. That is a terrible thing to force anyone to do. I also wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is mildly embarrassed at having launched for the Liberal Democrat party the policy not of a national minimum wage but of a regional minimum, only to ditch it a year later, describing it as "politically illiterate". No, we are not at all embarrassed.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said—indeed, I said it as recently as 14 February—that we will protect the pensions of public sector workers transferring under the TUPE regulations.

Dave Watts: May I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that many British workers still do not receive bank holiday pay? With the Queen's jubilee holiday on the horizon, will he take action to ensure that all employers face up to their responsibilities and pay their workers for all bank holidays?

Alan Johnson: We have introduced the right for every worker to have four weeks paid holiday a year. Bank holidays are a matter for contractual arrangements with individual companies. We are aware that the TUC has recently produced a report and we will look at it, but we do not think that that should detract from the real and tangible benefits that we have introduced since 1997.

Jonathan Djanogly: As strike days increased from 235,000 in 1997 to more than 500,000 last year, does the Minister accept that, for all this Government's employment regulations, guidances and so forth, the reality is that industrial relations are getting worse?

Alan Johnson: That is frankly ludicrous. A couple of years ago, under this Government, we had the lowest level of industrial action since records began in 1841.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister is referring to two years ago.

Alan Johnson: Let us leave aside the Thatcher years when there was an incredible level of industrial action, and consider the Major years, 1990–97, when the average for days lost through such action was 833,857. Since we came to power, the average has been 353,540, which is almost a third of the level that we inherited. Employment relations are good and they are made better by the fact that we have established minimum standards in the workplace. We are pro minimum standards and pro free, independent trade unionism. The Conservative party is anti-worker and anti-union.

Broadband Communications

James Purnell: What progress is being made towards the Government's targets for broadband communications.

Douglas Alexander: The UK Online annual report, published in December 2001, detailed progress towards our broadband targets. Broadband services in the UK had continued to develop over the year and 60 to 65 per cent. of the country is now covered by an affordable broadband technology.
	Progress is being made by industry and Government. Last year, we announced a £30 million fund to encourage broadband roll-out. This week, I detailed how that money would be spent in each region and, earlier this month, I welcomed BT's announcement that it was looking to reduce wholesale prices for broadband technologies.

James Purnell: I thank the Minister for that answer, which will be particularly welcome to small businesses in my constituency that are trying to use the potential of new technology to widen their markets and customer base. Does he agree that the announcement by BT in particular shows the importance of competition in achieving the goals that the Government have set? Will he also reassure the House that he will help businesses in rural areas to connect to broadband in the same way that businesses in city areas already can?

Douglas Alexander: I would certainly agree with my hon. Friend's comment that we need an extensive and a competitive market in this country, and I know of his long-standing commitment to this area of Government policy. Indeed, the £2.7 million that was recently allocated to the north-west will address the specific concerns of the small businesses that he addressed in his question.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister boasts that there is 60 to 65 per cent. broadband penetration in this country, but there is broadband and broadband, isn't there? At the great risk of sounding like an anorak and boring the entire House, broadband is 1.5 megabits a second, and the hon. Gentleman is not talking about that sort of bandwidth. The penetration of real broadband is only 25 per cent. We lag at 22nd in the world for broadband penetration. Will the hon. Gentleman stop being complacent and say how we will become No. 1, not No. 22?

Douglas Alexander: I certainly would not wish to bore the House, but the current generation speeds of 384 kilobits, up to 10 megabits, comply with the UK Online target that was set. However, the substantive point that the hon. Gentleman makes in relation to the challenge of meeting our targets is important. I am sure that he will agree that prices are falling, ADSL has reduced to less than £30 a month and take-up is rising—it is up more than 500 per cent. on last year. So we face two challenges: first, how we achieve a more extensive roll-out of broadband services and, secondly, how we drive usage across those networks. We are making real and substantive progress on both those challenges.

Jim Knight: Will the Minister focus on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) about what progress is being made in broadband roll-out in rural areas? In areas such as Dorset, which I represent, what progress has been made has largely been through the education sector. Bournemouth university is working with a business park and the learning and skills council is working with a group of small businesses. I am particularly interested in what work the Minister is doing with the Department for Education and Skills, so that the regional broadband consortiums and similar bodies link in with small business access to broadband.

Douglas Alexander: I certainly pay tribute to my hon. Friend's concern with this issue. I would make a central point: the public sector's aggregation work is absolutely key to the roll-out of broadband services in rural areas; it is the fundamental means by which we change the risk and reward balance through which investment decisions are taken in the private sector. I can also assure my hon. Friend that very considerable work is taking place not just in the Department of Trade and Industry, but right across the major spending Departments, anticipating the comprehensive spending review, to address exactly the issue that he raises.

Philip Hammond: I am sure that the Minister will agree that one of the great potential advantages of broadband is in reducing the significance of geographical location for business, thus supporting the regional rebalancing of the economy. But does he also recognise that the telcos, whose investment will determine the roll-out of broadband in the United Kingdom, are heavily capital constrained and debt burdened and that they will inevitably invest where returns are quickest—principally, in London and the south-east? Will he tell the House what specific proposals the Government have to stimulate investment in other parts of the country, so that broadband's true potential can be achieved?

Douglas Alexander: I am indeed surprised at a Conservative party spokesman advocating balanced regional economic growth throughout the United Kingdom, but, be that as it may, I will take the point that he makes in two parts. First, he is right to identify the need to ensure that the public sector leverages its investment in broadband effectively in a way that affects investment decisions by the private sector. Across Government, we spend approximately £1.7 billion a year on information and communications technology. One of the fundamental challenges that we have set ourselves is to discover how we can leverage that investment more effectively to address exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.
	Not only have we detailed this week the money allocated to each of the regions and devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom to try to ensure that regionally balanced economic growth takes place, but we have ensured that the plan that we have devised allows central Government to capture the insights garnered by the pilot projects that that money will facilitate. That is smart policy making to ensure that, in a competitive framework, we achieve the regional economic balance that the Government are certainly sincere in wanting.

Richard Allan: Does the Minister accept that although the recently announced price cuts by BT are welcome, they do nothing to help the third of the population who are not connected to ADSL-enabled exchanges, and that that is not confined to rural areas, but includes suburban areas, such as large parts of Sheffield, where people still cannot connect? Does he have anything positive to offer many of my constituents—including me, because my office is connected to a non-enabled exchange—in terms of a timetable to ensure that all the exchanges will be enabled so that businesses do not suffer this lack of competitiveness?

Douglas Alexander: Obviously, BT faces a number of commercial decisions in taking forward what is a wholly new strategy for the company of focusing on broadband. The present figures are approximately 50 per cent. cable coverage across the United Kingdom and 60 per cent. enabled exchanges. It is an important challenge for BT, if it is sincere in wanting to drive forward further broadband connections, to move higher the number of about 1,010 exchanges which are at present enabled. I have form in this regard, because five months ago I challenged the company to lower its prices. I would be happy to reinforce that today by challenging it to enable more exchanges.

Sub-post Offices

James Clappison: What assessment she has made of the prospects for sub-post offices.

Patricia Hewitt: The Government are committed to maintaining a nationwide network of post offices. We have allocated £270 million over three years for modernisation of the network. In January, we announced our support for a compensation package for the urban network restructuring programme to be undertaken by Post Office Ltd. Detailed discussion of this and an investment support package is continuing and a state aids notification will be submitted shortly.

James Clappison: While the Secretary of State may say that she is committed, is it not the case that last year a record 547 sub-post offices closed and that sub-post offices faced a further loss of business through the introduction of automated credit transfer? Can she give an assurance for her Department that the universal bank is on course to be delivered at the same time as the introduction of automated credit transfer—in April 2003? Apparently, it has already been delivered to the wrong address once and had to be redirected. Can she assure us that it will not be lost in the post altogether?

Patricia Hewitt: I will not take lectures on post office closures from a member of the Conservative party, given that there were 3,500 post office closures under the Conservatives. In the last nine months we have seen a welcome reduction in the rate of post office closures. As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, we placed a requirement on the company to avoid preventable closures. Discussions are progressing on the universal bank and the project is on track.

Ashok Kumar: What steps are being taken to strengthen the management of the network?

Patricia Hewitt: As my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and the Regions said last month, a new chief executive has been appointed for the post office network. David Mills, the new chief executive, has an excellent track record in retailing and will be able to bring that experience to exploit the extraordinary potential of what is our largest retail network. He will take up his job next month and immediately start going round the country to talk to sub-postmasters and their customers. I look forward to the proposals that he will no doubt wish to put to the board and Ministers for further strengthening the post office network.

Brian Cotter: On 1 March in response to a question I asked, the Secretary of State indicated that 73 post offices are currently under consultation with regard to closure. In the majority of cases nobody is applying to take them over. Does the right hon. Lady agree that that is not in the least surprising, given the uncertainty over the profitability of sub-post offices and the uncertainty that continues, following the answer just given, on the universal bank? Can we have more certainty, particularly about the universal bank, because there is no real commitment that it will be a profitable concern sufficient to make up for the lack of profitability as regards other Government measures?

Patricia Hewitt: It is perfectly true that there are some sub-post offices in urban and rural parts where it is not possible to get somebody to come forward and take over. That in part reflects the fact that we have within urban areas alone about two-thirds of the population living within half a mile of two and sometimes up to five sub-post offices. Some of those sub-post offices are struggling to survive commercially. That is why we have agreed with the company and the National Federation of Sub-postmasters a programme both for compensation and investment to ensure that sub-post offices will indeed have a good commercial future. As I said, we have already committed £270 million over three years to implement the recommendations of the comprehensive performance and innovation unit report to ensure that customers and sub-postmasters alike have confidence in the future of the post office network, which is vital to the social fabric of our country.

Steel Imports

Ian Cawsey: What action she proposes to take in response to the US Government's decision to impose tariffs on steel imports.

Patricia Hewitt: The Government will stand by our steel producers in combating this unjustified and deeply regrettable action. We fully support the action already taken by the European Trade Commissioner in initiating World Trade Organisation action against the United States. We are pressing the Commission to take appropriate and urgent action to safeguard British and European steel producers and workers against a flood of steel imports. We expect a decision on that within a matter of days, and we are working closely with British companies to support their efforts to secure exclusion from the American measures of products that American steel producers cannot supply.

Ian Cawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for her efforts on behalf of the steel industry, which we hope will be successful in persuading Commissioner Lamy to introduce quotas at the pre-1998 level. However, my right hon. Friend will be aware that the problems of the British steel industry did not begin with American tariffs. The relative strength of the pound against the euro has made life very difficult, and although EU defensive mechanisms are appropriate, what unilateral measures will she take to ensure that EU partners with a high dependency on US exports do not merely export those goods to the United Kingdom, further hitting the British steel industry?

Patricia Hewitt: We are working closely with our steel companies, trade unions and trade association to ensure that we do everything that is possible within the framework of WTO rules, which we support even if the Americans do not, to protect our companies and workers against the American action. Of course we are all aware of the impact of the weak euro on many of our steel companies, but despite that our steel industry has an excellent productivity record and a range of very high value-added products. We will continue to support the innovation and R and D that will help them to sustain their competitiveness both in Europe and globally.

Andrew MacKay: During the Secretary of State's recent statement to the House, she continually refused to answer questions on when the Prime Minister first became involved in making representations to the President and others in the American Administration. Will she now answer that—otherwise we, like steelworkers and others around the country, will conclude that the right hon. Gentleman's representations were woefully inadequate and made very late in the day?

Patricia Hewitt: I find it a little difficult to regard the right hon. Gentleman as a consistent and effective spokesman for our steel industry. I made it clear in that statement that since last July, the British Government—the Prime Minister, myself and other Ministers—and our embassy in Washington have consistently lobbied the American Government to persuade them not to take this deplorable action. We are now doing everything that we can to protect our industry against the consequences.

Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the steel industry in the UK is very appreciative of the efforts that she and her Department are making following the imposition of tariffs? Does she recognise the importance of the urgent action that Commissioner Lamy is considering, to which she referred in her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey)? There must be proper recognition of the time scale within which the European Commission applies the import safeguards. We need to return to the level set five years ago, or at least to take into consideration the fact that 2001 was an exceptional year. If the Commission does not note that, it will not provide the safeguards that the steel industry expects.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the base of imports from which safeguard action is calculated. That is a matter that we have been discussing both with the steel companies and with the Commission. A decision on safeguard measures is expected within a matter of days, and our target is to ensure that provisional safeguard measures across the European Union are put into effect as close as possible to 1 April.
	In the meantime, discussions on compensation have already started, and if they do not lead to agreement by about the middle of April the European Union will then be free to take retaliatory action against the United States. All those issues are being pursued as quickly as we possibly can.

Adam Price: May I press the Secretary of State on this important point? She mentions safeguard measures against imports from outside the European Union, but one of the most urgent threats to the UK steel industry will be the approximately 4 million tonnes of western European steel that will be displaced out of the US market. If that steel is targeted at the UK because of the exchange rate, the effect on the UK steel industry will be devastating. What urgent measures will the Secretary of State take to prevent that from happening?

Patricia Hewitt: We are talking to the industry and working with our European partners to minimise the damage that the American action will do to British and to other European steel producers. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, as are the Government, of the damage that the weakness of the euro is doing to many of our exporters in steel and in other parts of manufacturing industry. However, we will not make the mistake that Conservative Governments made in the past of trying to operate both an inflation target and an exchange rate target. Above all, our steel and manufacturing industry requires the framework of economic stability that this Government have delivered and the Conservative Government so signally failed to deliver.

Alan Howarth: I echo the thanks expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) to my right hon. Friend for her tough championship of the UK steel industry.
	Has my right hon. Friend had occasion to make clear to the US Administration how profoundly offensive is their steel protectionism at a time when British troops are mobilised to fight alongside American troops in Afghanistan and the Americans are making big demands of British friendship in international affairs? What sort of behaviour is it deliberately to impose restraints on trade to ensure that British workers lose their jobs to protect American ones?

Patricia Hewitt: As I said when I made my statement to the House on the American action, we would be wrong to link the war against terrorism with the trade war on steel that the Americans have unfortunately launched. We stand with our American allies and with the international coalition against terrorism because that is the right thing to do and it is in British interests—just as we stand with our steel producers against the American import tariffs on steel because on this occasion the American Administration are doing the wrong thing. I have expressed very directly to the American Administration our views on this unlawful and wholly unjustified action, and I shall continue to have discussions with members of the Administration to seek to mitigate the worst effects of their action on our British steel producers and workers.

Alan Simpson: Will the Secretary of State use this as an opportunity to review the effectiveness of the UK's anti-dumping policies? She will be aware that in the past week Raleigh Cycles in Nottingham made the sad announcement of its intention to cease producing bicycles in the United Kingdom. The main reason that it cites is the dumping of bikes from south-east Asia in terms with which it is impossible for the UK economy to compete.
	Raleigh has invested money to raise the standards of health and safety in its factory and to reduce waste by a factor 10 times better than that of its competitors from south-east Asia. Is not it a good time to consider the case for environmental tariffs so that we reward those who do not poison the land or the labour that they use in production?

Patricia Hewitt: I share my hon. Friend's real disappointment at the announcement made by Raleigh a few days ago. Raleigh is a great British firm that has been manufacturing bicycles in the city of Nottingham for many, many decades.
	We are always willing to look at evidence of dumping when it occurs and, where there is that evidence, to take action within World Trade Organisation rules. Environmental standards are of real concern not only to us but to our European partners. We discussed them fully during the Doha negotiations for a new world trade round. I hope that those discussions will proceed—but in the appropriate framework. My hon. Friend is aware that, unfortunately, many developing countries regard Europe's concern for the environment as no more than disguised protectionism.

John Whittingdale: As the Secretary of State knows, we support the imposition of safeguard measures by the EU in the form of steel quotas. However, this week, Corus announced losses of £400 million last year and confirmed that another 4,000 British steel workers are to lose their jobs. Is not that further proof of the damage caused by the overcapacity in the global steel industry, which is being sustained by her Government's support for Mr. Mittal's takeover of Corus's foreign competitors, while her Government are destroying the competitiveness of the UK industry through the climate change levy?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman makes an absurd proposition. The challenge to him is: does he support enlargement of the European Union, or does he not? Does he support economic reform in the candidate countries, or does he not? Does he support the steps that we are taking to sustain economic stability and to support directly the increasing competitiveness of our steel industry and the rest of our manufacturing industry?

John Whittingdale: It is no good for the Secretary of State to put on her pained expression. The issue will not go away. Does not she understand the feeling of betrayal among steel workers who have the prospect of their market being flooded by steel that previously went to the American market, while the steel produced by the Romanian company that is owned by the Government's crony, Mr. Mittal, will escape tariffs in the United States? Perhaps she will tell us whether her efforts to persuade the United States authorities to exempt British steel from tariffs have been half as successful as Mr. Mittal's efforts to have those tariffs imposed in the first place.

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman continues to talk nonsense. The steel output from Romania—a tiny, tiny fraction of European or world steel output—will continue to be exported to the American markets because it has been exempted by the American Government from the tariffs, just as steel produced in other developing countries has been exempted. The issue of the diversion of Romanian steel—or that of developing countries—from the American markets to the British and European markets simply does not arise. The much larger issue is that of world overcapacity in steel and American overcapacity in steel. That is why we have been supporting multilateral talks under the umbrella of the OECD to try and deal with the problem.

Science

Joan Ryan: What impact Government investment in the UK's science base is having on British industry.

Melanie Johnson: The Government are providing a strong framework for scientists and business to work together to drive innovation, and are encouraging collaboration between universities and business to ensure that scientific breakthroughs are turned into commercial success and benefit the UK economy.
	There has been rapid progress in generating businesses from the science base, with 199 new companies spun out from universities in 1999-2000, compared with 338 in the previous five years.

Joan Ryan: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer.
	The London business innovation centre is based in the Innova science park in my constituency. The centre provides incubator units for developing innovative ideas as well as business advice and support. My hon. Friend is welcome to visit that facility to see its success. However, it demonstrates the need for practical advice on the ground to ensure that "Invented in Britain" becomes "Made in Britain". Will my hon. Friend tell us what further measures the Government will be taking to ensure that higher education institutions that do not currently provide incubator units can do so?

Melanie Johnson: I am delighted to hear of the success of the centre in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I should be pleased to try to visit it in the not-too-distant future. The successful exploitation of new ideas is a crucial component for our productivity growth, a topic about which I know my hon. Friend is concerned, as am I. In the knowledge economy it will not be enough for us to generate research—we need to make the most of it too. As my hon. Friend said, we need to ensure that there is a spin-off from the world class research in universities and the private sector, and we need to develop the ability to capitalise on the innovations that research produces.
	My hon. Friend will be interested to hear of the success of our policies compared with those in north America. In 1999-2000, UK universities identified one spin-off firm for every £8.6 million of research expenditure; in Canadian universities, the spin-off in 1999 was one firm for every £13.9 million, and in the USA the rate was one firm for every £53 million. That shows the success of UK universities and businesses, and of the support given by the Government.

Robert Key: I should be delighted to meet the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) in her constituency to see if her incubators are as good as mine at Porton Down.
	Does the Minister agree that we all have a responsibility to encourage a pro-science culture in this country, starting with more and better science education in schools? What regular meetings occur between her or her Department and the Department for Education and Skills to discuss the need to encourage science education?

Melanie Johnson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we invest in science, including science in schools. Our whole aim has been to commit additional money to investment in the science base; for example, a £1 billion package has been invested in the science and engineering base in partnership with the Wellcome Trust and the funding councils. In addition, we have given a £100 million boost to the science budget to build on universities' potential as drivers of growth in the knowledge economy. There has also been a £252 million boost to research in key areas that will shape life in the 21st century, such as understanding the genome, developing the next generation of e-science and creating new basic technology capabilities. All those things are very important.
	I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the work that is done with our young people is important too, as is the development of science in the primary and secondary school curriculum. I assure him that my hon. Friends and myself have regular contacts with the DFES to ensure that we make the most of science education and the UK's science potential.

Small Businesses

Gillian Merron: What assessment she has made of the impact of the Employment Bill on small businesses.

Nigel Griffiths: The Government consulted extensively on the proposals in the Employment Bill to ensure, among other things, that the impact on small businesses was taken into account.

Gillian Merron: I thank the Minister for his reply. I particularly welcome the measures in the Employment Bill to allow small businesses easily to give paid time off to parents welcoming a new child into the family. However, having heard the continuing concern of my local branch of the Federation of Small Businesses, may I ask my hon. Friend to outline the action that he is taking to relieve the burden of red tape? What steps is he taking to outline to small businesses the implications of the Employment Bill?

Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend rightly points out how improved statutory maternity pay provisions from April will aid even more small businesses with 105 per cent. refunds, which will help 60 per cent. of affected small and medium-sized enterprises, compared with 44 per cent. beforehand. The Government have accepted all but eight of the 294 recommendations from the better regulation taskforce. Our Regulatory Reform Act 2001 is making it easier and quicker to repeal out-of-date legislation. Our Small Business Service is working in partnership with the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the chambers of commerce and others to identify the impact of the Employment Bill on SMEs in particular, and how that might be dealt with.

Mark Prisk: Is it true, and can the Minister confirm, that the cost of the Employment Bill rose during Committee stage from about £200 million to £500 million, that cost falling on businesses, in particular small businesses? Will he reflect on those costs and listen to and understand the concerns expressed by small business organisations, which believe that what they were originally promised when the Bill was introduced in the House has changed substantially?

Nigel Griffiths: We have listened with care to the representations that we have received from small businesses, but we are firm in our support for proper standards in the workplace. That is why we are for the minimum wage, increased maternity and paternity leave, and the flexible working that is so essential to the 21st-century economy. What is important is that the benefits of the legislation to many millions of workers far outweigh the costs involved.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

The Minister was asked—

Women's Unit

Claire Curtis-Thomas: If she will make a statement on the work of the women's unit within the DTI with specific reference to the promotion of science, engineering and technology.

Patricia Hewitt: The DTI's unit promoting SET for women is doing excellent work on the recruitment and retention of women in science, engineering and technology and ensuring that women contribute to scientific policy making. I recently launched a report commissioned by the unit on maximising returns to science, engineering and technology careers.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I suspect that my right hon. Friend shared the delight I felt to hear so many questions relating to science today. It is an opportune moment to remind the House that the Government have invested £1.7 billion in academic science provision in this country. Focusing on women in science, I understand that my colleague Susan Greenfield, now Baroness Greenfield, is currently producing a report on women and their opportunities to re-enter science and engineering activities. Is my right hon. Friend in a position to provide an update on that report?

Patricia Hewitt: I recently met Baroness Greenfield to discuss the approach she is to take to the issue of how to get more women into science and engineering. I am delighted to say that she has already established three working groups, which will consider the three key stages of a career in technology and science: early stage, mid-career and management, and then going right through to the top. She is to consult women already working in SET, as well as women who would like to return to the field but have not yet done so. I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend is looking forward to Baroness Greenfield's report, which I expect to receive in June.

Sandra Gidley: I am beginning to feel that I am living in a parallel universe—[Hon. Members: "You are."] Part of the problem is women's uptake of science and engineering A-levels and degrees: of those embarking on an engineering degree, only 14.5 per cent. are women. Is not an indictment of the Government's performance provided by the "Women in ITEC Courses and Careers in 2001" report, which shows that the proportion of women employed in ITEC—information technology, electronics and communications—jobs decreased from 16 per cent. in 1999 to 13 per cent. in 2000? That suggests to me that employment of women in science has decreased, not increased as the Minister suggested. Other aspects of the problem have been identified as: problems with part-time working and with—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Lady resume her seat? She has finished.

Patricia Hewitt: I am sorry that the hon. Lady finds the Liberal Benches to be a parallel universe. She might be more comfortable on the Government Benches—we would be delighted to welcome her.
	The hon. Lady makes an important point: the proportion of women employed in information and communications technology jobs has indeed been falling. The absolute numbers have risen as the total sector has increased, but the proportion of women has been falling. We have a very real problem in that the image of engineering, computing, and science and technology careers is deeply off-putting to many girls and many young women. That is why we are putting such emphasis on getting women role models and women ambassadors, especially into schools, so that we encourage more women to enter the extraordinarily exciting field of science and technology that offers such wonderful and well-paid job opportunities.

Public Life

Jackie Lawrence: What steps she is taking to increase female representation in public life.

Patricia Hewitt: The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act received Royal Assent on 26 February. I hope that all political parties will seize the opportunity that the Act presents to increase the number of women candidates.

Jackie Lawrence: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that she accepts that women from all walks of life can make a valuable contribution to public life and to public bodies. Will she give an outline of what her Department is doing to encourage a wider range of women to put themselves forward as candidates, not just women from professional and managerial backgrounds?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, and I have been organising meetings and seminars around the country that are designed to encourage women from a variety of backgrounds to think about possible public appointments for which their skills in the family, in their local neighbourhoods and in voluntary organisations have made them well fitted. I am pleased to say that that programme of seminars has been such a success in attracting women to apply for public appointments that I shall do three more meetings targeted at women from the black and Asian community, women from business and women from trade unions.

Andrew Lansley: The Minister will know that in 1997 33 per cent. of public appointments were held by women, and that this year the figure is 34 per cent. Does she acknowledge that, at that rate of progress, it will take till 2082 to reach the Government's target of 50 per cent. of public appointments being held by women? What progress does the Minister claim for herself?

Patricia Hewitt: We are making faster progress than the Conservative party, which has just gone through Trade and Industry questions with no women present. It is precisely because the rate of progress in the past has not been fast enough that we are taking much stronger measures to improve the recruitment of women and of men and women from ethnic minority communities to public appointments. That is why we have targets across all Departments and public agencies for the appointment of women and people from minority ethnic communities to public appointments. I am glad to say that the majority of Departments are well on track to reach that target of 50 per cent. of public appointments being held by women.

Mothers

Fiona Mactaggart: What steps she is taking to promote Government measures to make it easier for those mothers who want to return to work to do so.

Patricia Hewitt: We are promoting a range of measures to tackle this issue, including investment in child care, the working families tax credit, the new deal for lone parents and the new deal for partners, and increased access to adult education. The Employment Bill currently before Parliament includes further measures to enable more mothers who wish to return to work to do so.

Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome the steps that have been taken to help women to return to work, one of the most significant of which is the improvements in child care provision, especially after school child care. May I urge the Secretary of State to do what she can to ensure that, as new opportunities funding runs out for after school child care schemes, support for mothers, especially low-paid mothers, through such schemes continues so that we carry on making the progress that we have started to make in opening up work opportunities for women?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We have begun to make real progress on child care. We have created additional child care places for almost 880,000 children since 1997, and we are on track to help more than 1.5 million children with child care places by 2004. The specific issue of new opportunities funding in disadvantaged areas and how we sustain and grow provision in those communities is being reviewed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, and is also the subject of a study by the performance and innovation unit.

Caroline Spelman: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that parents returning to work often prefer informal child care arrangements, and, if possible, leaving their children with a relative. Does she accept that we were right to criticise this gap in the arrangements for the working families tax credit, and that yesterday's announcement that child care tax credits might be extended to grandparents represents a welcome climbdown?

Patricia Hewitt: I am delighted that the hon. Lady has told us that she and the Conservative party strongly support the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit that goes with it. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor first announced the working families tax credit, he made it clear that he would keep its operation under review. It is already enormously popular and it is helping more than three times as many people as the Conservatives' family credit was helping. The issue of whether it can be extended to family carers including grandparents is of real concern, for instance, to some of my constituents in low-income communities. That is why we are looking precisely at that possibility.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give the business for next week?

Robin Cook: The business of the House for next week is as follows:
	Monday 25 March—Second Reading of the State Pension Credit Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 26 March—Motion to approve the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges on the registration of interests by Members who have not taken their seat.
	Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill.
	Motion on the Easter Recess Adjournment.
	The business for the week after Easter will be:
	Tuesday 9 April—Second Reading of the Enterprise Bill.
	Wednesday 10 April—Second Reading of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [Lords].
	Thursday 11 April—Debate on armed forces personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 12 April—Private Members' Bills.
	The House will wish to be reminded that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement on Wednesday 17 April.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for April will be:
	Thursday 11 April—Debate on UK-Japanese relations.
	Thursday 18 April—Debate on the report from the Social Security Committee on the Social Fund.
	Thursday 25 April—Debate on the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on British-US relations.

Eric Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for telling us the business.
	A Second Reading debate on the Enterprise Bill on 9 April has been announced. I am led to believe that that Bill has not yet been published, but it is rumoured that it may contain more than 250 clauses and in excess of 20 schedules. The Leader of the House is putting us in a position whereby a major Bill containing enormously complex material, which, I gather, has had no pre-legislative scrutiny, will not be published until next week when the House goes into recess for two weeks. Immediately on the House's return, it will be asked to conduct its Second Reading debate. Surely that flies completely in the face not only of all parliamentary convention but of the Leader of the House's principles—which he likes to set out frequently—which include a belief in the value of pre-legislative scrutiny and in the necessity for the House to have a proper opportunity not only to debate and to scrutinise but to consult legitimate outside interests before doing so. I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the matter.
	Given that we are not exactly under enormous pressure of time, will the Leader of the House consider delaying, even at this late stage, the Second Reading of the Enterprise Bill? We would thus have more time properly to consider it and properly to consult outside the House before we debate it.
	There is an item in a newspaper today headed: "Labour peer quits in job row". Apparently, the peer in question is a nice man called Lord Warner, who is a Labour peer. I gather that, at one time, he was a special adviser to no less a man than the Foreign Secretary. Lord Warner lists law and order as his special interests in "Dod's Parliamentary Companion", so he is obviously a good chap. I am really inviting the Leader of the House to tell me that the story is completely wrong. It is reported that this nice man was going to be offered the job of head of the Audit Commission, and that that was endorsed by No. 10, no less. However, it is alleged that another nice man, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—to whom the House has had to get used, as he comes here so often to grovel—for some reason vetoed the appointment of the nice Lord Warner.
	We really must get to the bottom of this. If that Secretary of State is messing things up again, defying No. 10 and disappointing one of his colleagues so much that a Labour peer has resigned from his party and joined the Cross Benches, we need to know more about it. Moreover, if that nice man has seen fit to resign, what has happened to the Labour Chief Whip in the Lords? Some very serious allegations were made last week—

Robert Key: Another very nice man.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) says that the Labour Chief Whip in the Lords is a nice man, but that is not how he came across on Sky Television last weekend, when he made some very serious allegations. Why has he not stepped aside until his name is cleared—if it is going to cleared? Why is he still in his job, when Lord Warner has left the Labour party? I think that we need to know.
	I genuinely regret to say this, but the Prime Minister's contempt for Parliament is becoming more and more obvious. We must not forget that, according to the House of Commons Library, the Prime Minister has a voting record of 3 per cent. That means that he bothers to turn up to this House to vote on only 3 per cent. of occasions. What the people of Sedgefield think about that I do not know as, apart from anything else, the right hon. Gentleman is supposed to represent them in the House of Commons.
	However, the problem is even worse. The Prime Minister was not present for the debate on our military involvement in Afghanistan, even though the Secretary of State for Defence has said that our military personnel may be putting their lives on the line. The Prime Minister was not here to support the Secretary of State, or our young men and women in uniform. I have heard, although I can scarce believe it, that, at the material time, the Prime Minister was talking to Labour MPs about foxes. I hope that the Leader of the House can confirm or deny that.
	If the Prime Minister seriously believes that foxes are more important than the lives of our young men and women in uniform, he should be ashamed of himself. He should come to the House to make an apology. I hope that the Leader of the House will urge him to do so.

Robin Cook: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for drawing our attention to the Enterprise Bill. It is a very important Bill—

Eric Forth: indicated dissent

Robin Cook: It is indeed an important Bill, and we understood that the principle on which it is based was supported by the Conservative party, just as it is extensively supported throughout industry and business. I am happy to confirm that the Bill will be published next week. By my reckoning, that will allow a clear two weeks before the Second Reading debate. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) is one of the more able and intellectual of Opposition Front-Bench Members, and I am sure that it is within his wit to prepare a 25-minute speech over the two-week period of the recess.

Eric Forth: indicated dissent

Robin Cook: Apparently, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) does not have faith in the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, or believe that he can prepare a 25-minute speech in that time. It is very important that the Government respond to the strong wish in industry, commerce and business to improve the competition regulations. We must make sure that those regulations promote competition and break up cartels, and that they are more independent of political control. I totally support the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford will be able to say the same when he returns after the recess, when he will have had plenty of leisure to consider these matters in full.
	I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his observation that Lord Warner is a very nice man. He used another term to describe Lord Warner that is not one normally used by Labour Members, but I am happy to accept his word that he is also "a good chap"—I hope that I have got the phrase right. I shall not dispute either of those points with the right hon. Gentleman, and no Labour Member would suggest that Lord Warner was not a nice man or a good chap.
	However, I have been sitting here wondering what the right hon. Gentleman would have said if Lord Warner had been appointed to chair the Audit Commission. I know exactly what he would have said. He would have said, "Another of Steve's cronies gets an appointment . . . a Labour special adviser to Labour Ministers . . . it is disgraceful that such a man should have a very important position of independence." The right hon. Gentleman should spare us the humbug. He hits us over the left ear and, when we react in a different way, he tries to hit us over the right ear.
	Lord Carter has issued a full statement through his lawyers fully rebutting the allegations mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. It was available to Sky Television before it went ahead with the programme. I very much regret that the current standards of journalism are such that Sky proceeded with the piece, paying no attention to the rebuttal and making no mention of the denial. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to show a greater sense of integrity and honesty than Sky by studying the rebuttal with great care.
	I am happy to assure the right hon. Gentleman, as he appears worried about it, that the electors of Sedgefield have full confidence in their Member of Parliament. I would be prepared to bet, fairly confidently, that they will demonstrate that again at the next general election. As for where the Prime Minister was, I was at the meeting that he is alleged to have attended. The Prime Minister left the meeting before the discussion about foxhunting, in order to attend a meeting with the Prime Minister of Australia. I consider that to be an entirely legitimate activity for the Prime Minister of Britain, and personally I am rather glad that Britain has a Prime Minister who has the respect of other Heads of Government around the globe.
	The right hon. Gentleman alluded to a general matter that has been raised in the press. I had understood—perhaps I was wrong, and perhaps Conservative Members will correct me—that the Opposition had tabled their emergency motion to demonstrate their support for our action in rounding up al-Qaeda terrorists and standing shoulder to shoulder with our United States allies. We are, of course, grateful for that support. I am sorry if Opposition Members feel hurt by the fact that we did not turn up in sufficient numbers to convince them of our gratitude for their loyal support, but if they really want to show support of a bipartisan character for our action in Afghanistan and the work of our troops there, they ought to say so clearly and unequivocally, and stop scoring cheap party political points.

Paul Tyler: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 1041, which concerns military action against Iraq?
	[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that there is a debate and substantive motion in the House before any further British forces are deployed in any military action beyond present commitments against Iraq by land, sea or air, and if necessary to recall Parliament during any recess for that purpose.]
	Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a specific undertaking that there will be no deployment of any British troops on any exercise involving Iraq until there has been a debate in the House?
	Also, will the right hon. Gentleman again consider the need for clarity and an early statement on the Government's intentions in relation to House of Lords reform? As he will recall, on Tuesday, in answer to our questions, he himself said:
	"I also welcome the Public Administration Committee's thoughtful contribution to the debate, which has proved that it is possible to find a centre of gravity on the composition of reform".—[Official Report, 19 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 163.]
	It would seem that the Prime Minister had not read the right hon. Gentleman's words when he said yesterday, on the very same subject:
	"There are many different voices."—[Official Report, 20 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 304.]
	I am a great admirer of the dexterity and ingenuity of the Leader of the House, but how can he possibly reconcile those two entirely different statements?

Robin Cook: As I have said on two previous Thursdays and am happy to say on a third, no decision has been taken on Iraq, and no decision may be taken. As for a debate in the House, I think that Ministers can refer with credit and with honour to what we did in relation to the action in Afghanistan. There were five full debates on the subject, at least two of which preceded any military action. I am confident that should any decision be made—I am not prejudging whether it ever will—there will be a full debate in the House before any such action.
	As for reform of the House of Lords, I am tempted to say that no decision has yet been taken, although I am confident in this instance that one will be taken. I am distressed that the hon. Gentleman should imagine that the Prime Minister does not read my words and those of every other Member who speaks in the Chamber, and I do not see the gulf that the hon. Gentleman sees. There are a multitude of views on this matter—indeed, we have received more than 1,000 responses to the consultation—but as the Public Administration Committee has shown, it is not impossible to find a centre of gravity among the voices in favour of reform. I hope that we will continue to search for it, and will succeed in that search.

John McDonnell: My right hon. Friend will know that eight weeks ago there was a breach of security at Heathrow airport and that more than £3 million was stolen. The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Home Secretary then announced a review of security at Heathrow. Two days ago, there was another breach of security and £2 million was stolen. Will the respective Secretaries of State make statements in the House on the progress of the review? The issue is important, as money has been stolen and lives could be put at risk. We need to reassure the travelling public and restore their confidence in security at our airports.

Robin Cook: I understand the importance of this issue to my hon. Friend and his constituents; indeed, it is also of acute interest to Members of this House who, like me, regularly pass through Heathrow and want to have confidence in security there. The particular incident to which he refers is being pursued by the police, who are questioning those involved. Of course, it must also be a factor in the review on security at Heathrow, which is already under way. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to write to my hon. Friend advising him when we expect the review to be concluded.

Henry Bellingham: Although today's statement on Zimbabwe is obviously welcome, does the Leader of the House agree that, in the light of the atrocious way in which Mugabe stole the election and the appalling recriminations against that country's Opposition, the time is right to have a full day's debate—in Government time—on this important issue? Surely it would have been better to debate that rather than hunting, for example, last Monday. Does he agree that more targeted sanctions are needed, such as banning all flights by Zimbabwean airlines?

Robin Cook: We have already adopted a battery of measures against Zimbabwe. First, we established an arms freeze; secondly, we have ensured that we provide no economic aid to its Government; thirdly, action is being taken, through European Union measures, to prevent President Mugabe and his cronies from flying to this country, and against any assets that they hold.
	We have taken great care to ensure that we do not adopt measures that would hit the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, who already suffer enough as a result of President Mugabe, without our adding to it. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless be aware that there are some 40,000 British passport holders in Zimbabwe, who want to visit Britain regularly. We would want to reflect very carefully before adopting a measure that might hit them harder than anybody else.

David Wright: Does my right hon. Friend agree that hospital trust mergers need to be considered carefully? Several of my constituents are concerned that the proposed merger of Telford's Princess Royal hospital and the Royal Shrewsbury hospital will prove disadvantageous. Can we have a debate in the House on hospital trust mergers?

Robin Cook: I am well aware of the enormous local sensitivity to hospital mergers and the great affection that communities have for their local hospital, which underlines their faith in the national health service. I fully understand why my hon. Friend wants to raise this issue and put it on the record, and I shall invite my colleagues at the Department of Health to write to him. Obviously, I cannot promise a debate on the topic to which he refers, but I can assure him that these matters are followed closely at ministerial level.

Pete Wishart: We hear weekly of the Government's intention to change the drugs laws, most notably through the reclassification of certain soft drugs, but no legislation or statutory instruments to that effect have so far been proposed. How will the process be pursued? Will a Bill be introduced, and will hon. Members be given the opportunity to debate the Government's proposals? Most important, given that we are talking about the most fundamental change to drugs laws since the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, will we be allowed to vote on the Government's proposals?

Robin Cook: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government have already made a number of statements on this issue, and some local initiatives are under way. I am sure that the entire House followed with close interest the results of the policing experiment in south London, which has actually increased the number of arrests of those who peddle hard drugs. That is particularly welcome.
	As the hon. Gentleman suggests, no decision has been announced by the Home Secretary, so it would be premature for me to say how we would implement such a decision. However, the House has not been short of opportunities to debate the matter; indeed, a full debate took place only two or three months ago, if I recall rightly. I am sure that we will return to the matter again.

Margaret Moran: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today marks the end of car manufacturing in Luton? After almost 100 years, Vauxhall is closing, resulting in the loss of 5,000 jobs in the region. He will doubtless want to join me in thanking the workers, unions and local authority members who tried so hard to retain car manufacturing in my constituency. Will he agree to an early debate on how to ensure that companies such as General Motors undertake to consult employees and the Government on an ongoing basis before such major decisions are taken, and that they take full responsibility in ensuring that compensation and assistance is provided to regenerate local economies, which are devastated by such decisions?

Robin Cook: The whole House will sympathise with my hon. Friend on the loss of employment in Luton and wish to raise its concern about the loss of employment for several thousand people across Europe within Vauxhall production. I agree with my hon. Friend that if a work force and local community have given their loyalty and contribution to a company in the way that her constituents have done for Vauxhall, they are entitled to look to the company to help them to adjust to the process of change. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are assisting in all the ways that they can to ensure that those who were employed by Vauxhall have the opportunity of fresh work and Luton has the opportunity of a fresh start for its economy.

George Young: When the House returns after the Easter recess, may we have a debate—this time in Government time—on the progress of action in Afghanistan?

Robin Cook: I shall keep all those issues under review. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have just announced the business for the first week after the recess and that will include a day's debate on armed forces personnel, when I am sure that many references to Afghanistan will be made. I am also sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will wish to speak further about those of our personnel in action in Afghanistan.

Paul Flynn: Could we have a debate on small businesses so that the House could congratulate my constituent, Mr. Shelim Hussein, who was named the young Asian business man of the year? In a short time, he has gone from being a waiter in a restaurant to the owner of a business with a turnover of £50 million, under the benign influence of an enterprise-friendly Labour Government. Could we also congratulate Mr. Hussein on his statement that however big his business grows he will still have it firmly located in the brand new city of Newport?

Robin Cook: I am happy to say that my hon. Friend has relieved me of the obligation to have a debate in order that he may congratulate his constituent, as he has just done so eloquently and convincingly. I welcome the fact that he has mentioned the success of the young Asian business man of the year, because it underlines the theme that I have often mentioned to the House of the enormous asset to this country of those who have come here and made their home here and the strength to Britain of being a multicultural, multiracial society.

Roy Beggs: May I draw to the attention of the House early-day motion 910?
	[That this House calls upon the Parliamentary Ombudsman to initiate an immediate independent inquiry into the Equitable Life affair and the gross dereliction of duty of the regulators appointed by the Government to monitor Equitable Life policies.]
	The motion has now attracted 147 signatures from Members on both sides of the House. Will the Leader of the House use his influence to persuade the parliamentary ombudsman to address the issue, to give us an independent inquiry and to achieve a satisfactory conclusion for more than 1 million policy holders, past and present, who believe that they have been disadvantaged?

Robin Cook: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having pursued an issue of immense and real concern to thousands of United Kingdom citizens. It is an important principle that the ombudsman is independent of Government and not subject to pressure from Ministers, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the ombudsman has the matter before him. He has, sensibly, concluded that it would not be proper for him to take action pending the outcome of the inquiry by Penrose, which has already been appointed by the Government, but I am sure that he will return to the matter and consider what action he can take once we have received the report.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the ongoing crisis in the railway industry—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I do not know why Opposition Members laugh, because they are the cause of it. That crisis covers not only Railtrack but the train operating companies, two of which have recently had subventions from Government to dig them out of financial difficulties. It is alleged that another four are in serious financial difficulties. Maintenance is an ongoing problem and train delays are getting worse. More than half of the delays are due to train operating companies, not Railtrack. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only a Labour Government can sort out the mess in the rail industry and that it is time for a full debate in which all the options can be considered, including wholesale renationalisation of the rail industry?

Robin Cook: I fully share my hon. Friend's sentiment, but I could have drafted his question slightly differently.

Andrew Mitchell: Tell him about your philosophy.

Robin Cook: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful idea. I might take refuge in it if my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) presses me too far.
	I and my colleagues believe that we were right to take action and end the competition for Railtrack's resources between the travelling public and the private shareholder. That is why I hope that what results from administration will be a company that can devote itself single-mindedly to serving the travelling public without having to serve the master of private shareholders. We shall continue to ensure that investment goes into the rail industry. Those who travel on the continent are well aware of the distances involved and of the enormous gulf between the performance of our railways and that of the better continental railways, resulting from the long period of neglect under the previous Administration.

Graham Brady: May we have an early debate on the operation of the Data Protection Act 1998, particularly in the light of concerns raised by hospital chaplains against whom the Act is being used to stop them receiving information about the religious affiliation of patients in hospitals? My constituent, Rev. Graham Skinner, wrote that his chaplaincy team had found the new legislation to be a millstone for their ministry. That was not intended when the legislation was enacted. It is now affecting many vulnerable people. May we have a debate so that those concerns can be brought out into the open?

Robin Cook: I am well aware of some hon. Members' concerns about how the Data Protection Act is impinging on their constituency work. I am actively pursuing that matter and hope to bring any findings before the House. The Data Protection Act was plainly correct in principle and in its objective—to protect the rights of our citizens and constituents—but it must be applied with common sense. It should not become a means of denying our citizens and constituents their rights.
	I shall happily look further into the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised. He may have encountered an over-official interpretation of the Act. I am not aware of a parallel case, but it is important that a law that was intended to protect our people benefits them rather than detracts from their quality of life.

Howard Stoate: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the state of the transport network in Kent Thameside? I ask because it is an area with massive inward investment and is of huge strategic importance to the whole nation. Several outstanding transport issues remain, particularly the state of the railway network, the channel tunnel rail link, Ebbsfleet station and now the possibility of an airport at Cliffe in north Kent. Those strategic issues impact on the whole nation, so will my right hon. Friend find time for a full debate on the subject?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises some strategic and profound issues affecting the region that he represents. It is right for him to put his constituents' concerns before the House. I encourage him to examine further ways to ventilate them, perhaps in Westminster Hall. In the meantime, he will share our pleasure that section one of the channel tunnel link is on schedule and should be completed this year.

Angela Watkinson: Can the Leader of the House inform us how many additional cannabis users and dealers have been attracted to the streets of Lambeth from other areas during the recent experiment?

Robin Cook: I cannot answer the hon. Lady's question and I might be regarded with some suspicion if I could. I advise her to examine the results of the experiment carefully. I would personally applaud the police in that area if, as a result of the experiment, they were bringing to book more of those who peddle hard drugs—the ones that we should focus on.

Gillian Merron: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the public interest report drawn up by external auditors KPMG, who have investigated serious allegations of political and financial mismanagement by Lincolnshire county councillors? The report is not yet in the public domain. Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on improving the public availability of public interest reports, which is vital to restoring my constituents' confidence in local democracy?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend has just put some of the material of that report in the public domain, and I congratulate her on her vigilance. As I said last week when the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst raised a similar issue, I fully deprecate any failure of probity, integrity or financial honesty in public life, whether it is in the House or local authorities. The best weapon against such corruption is transparency. The best remedy that we have is letting in daylight and making sure that the constituents themselves know what is going on.

Andrew Mitchell: Will the Leader of the House, who is always so reasonable and affable on these occasions, consider arranging for a debate ahead of the Chancellor's statement on his Budget on public spending, as we now learn that since the Government were elected in 1997, taxation receipts have increased by about 50 per cent? As the Leader of the House will know, in the west midlands the transport infrastructure is close to collapse, hospital waiting lists are rising, beds are blocked through lack of resources and crime on our streets is almost completely out of control. We need an urgent debate on when we will get value for money for all that extra taxation.

Robin Cook: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to be flattering in describing me as affable and I will not take offence at the description. In order to preserve that mood of affability in these exchanges, may I try to encourage him to take a more cheerful perspective on the public services that he has described? In the west midlands, as elsewhere, there are more doctors, more nurses and now more hospital beds than ever before. He will no doubt wish to congratulate the Government on the fact that we are on target to achieve by the end of this month the 20 per cent. reduction in bed blocking that we promised.

John Barrett: The Leader of the House will be aware of the ongoing crisis in the Scottish rail industry following the 24-hour strike last Tuesday.

Dennis Skinner: That was not a proper strike; it was only one day.

John Barrett: The Leader of the House will also be aware that a further two strikes planned by ASLEF have been cancelled, but there are reports in today's paper that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has actively blocked a resolution of the Scottish rail dispute. Can the Leader of the House find time for the Secretary of State to come to the House to explain exactly what has been going on between the Minister for Transport and Planning in Scotland and the Secretary of State's Department? He should be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Dennis Skinner: No sooner started than it finished.

Robin Cook: I think that my hon. Friend has said quite enough.
	I am very sceptical about the allegation to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) refers, and I advise him not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers; indeed, he would possibly be wise not to believe most of the things he reads in the newspapers. We are clear that these are primarily matters for the train operators themselves to resolve. They are not primarily in the first instance a matter for Government. We have always encouraged both sides to seek independent conciliation and arbitration to find a resolution, and we continue to do so.

Harry Barnes: Sadly, James Tobin died last week. He was best known for the tax that bore his name, an international tax on currency speculation to be used for developments in the third world, yet he had no sympathy for anti-globalisation rebels who took up the tax. Would he not have been pleased to see early-day motion 885?
	[That this House notes that international currency transactions total more than $1 trillion a day and that the vast majority of this is unrelated to the real economy of tangible trade goods and services; believes that such enormous speculative flows have contributed to serious economic damage to countries and regions such as Mexico (1994), Southeast Asia (1997), Russia (1998), Brazil (1999) and Argentina (2001); further believes that a small levy on such currency speculation, the Tobin tax, named after the Nobel Laureate who originated the concept, could both dampen down the scale and scope of speculation and raise substantial revenues, potentially in excess of $50 billion each year, for projects targeted towards ending global poverty; is pleased that this initiative now enjoys the backing of a number of governments and parliaments across the world, including France? whose parliament recently passed a law authorising its implementation; is heartened by the words of the Chancellor that innovative ways need to be urgently found, including currency taxes, to finance development; wishes the Chancellor a successful mission to the UN 'Financing for development' conference in Monterrey, Mexico; urges him to take steps towards the introduction of a internationally co-ordinated currency transactions tax, with the proceeds ring-fenced for international substantial development objectives; and further urges the Chancellor to ensure that these proceeds do not replace either existing international aid disbursements or agreed commitments to increase international aid.]
	It has been signed by 115 hon. Members, a wide range of respectable people from different parties. Would not James Tobin also have been pleased to see the ten-minute Bill that was introduced last week by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan)? Can we not, therefore, now have a debate in Government time on what is seen increasingly internationally as a very important issue?

Robin Cook: I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to pay tribute to James Tobin, whose work has provided an important contribution to the debate on international financial movements. I am sure that James Tobin would have been gratified to see the support that my hon. Friend and his colleagues have secured for their early-day motion.
	The Tobin tax is a perfect, wonderful and impressive construct but it requires everyone in the world to participate in it in order for it to work. If just one held out against the tax, it would be very difficult to make it succeed in practice. It is essential that we find ways of increasing the resources that go into third world development; James Tobin had intended his tax to provide the funds. There will very shortly be just such a conference in Monterrey, where the British delegation will be promoting the commitment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has just made to continue the improvements that we are making in the British overseas aid budget, and to continue to ensure that we make steady progress towards the agreed international targets.

Tony McWalter: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread disquiet in the House and outside about President Bush's remarks about an axis of evil, which suggest that we want to go to war on many fronts? There is also disquiet at the Government's rather quiescent attitude to those remarks. I was going to ask my right hon. Friend whether he would bring the Foreign Secretary to the House to make a statement on the matter, but I see that he is here already. Perhaps the Leader of the House would give him a nudge and ask him to disavow George Bush's remarks.

Robin Cook: I am delighted to have delivered on my hon. Friend's request even before he made it. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has addressed the House on the issue on several occasions.
	The action that we took in Afghanistan was absolutely correct and plainly in defence of our national interest. It was not in the service of United States interests alone. We, too, lost citizens in the attack on the twin towers and are exposed to the complex, sophisticated and expensive terrorism mounted by al-Qaeda. It is important that we act whenever necessary to ensure that our people can live and travel the world in safety. We must continue to consider carefully the British national interest and act on it.

Nick Gibb: The Leader of the House may be aware that the TV Licensing recently changed its procedures. People who do not have a television set and give the authority that information are being visited by officials, who request admission to their home. That is causing enormous stress to several of my elderly constituents who have no television and feel harassed. Following the first visit, they are liable to receive more visits every couple of years thereafter. That is a gross intrusion into the privacy of people who do not receive BBC services. The change of policy is a result not of a debate in the House but Executive action. Might we have a debate, followed by a vote, to assess hon. Members' views?

Robin Cook: I shall happily look into whether there has been a change of policy, but in my long constituency experience it has been the practice of inspectors to call on people who do not have a licence to investigate whether they have a television. There is nothing new in that: it is, after all, the role for which they have been appointed. If the hon. Gentleman wants to challenge that role, it is open to him to draft a Bill or table a motion in the House, but we need a system to ensure that people who have a television have paid for a licence and are not having a free ride on the back of the millions of law-abiding people in Britain who have done so.

Greg Knight: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the Enterprise Bill. I raise the matter as a House point, not a party political one. The timetable that the Leader of the House announced is indecent, unjust and unreasonable, and I hope that he will reflect on his answer. I understand that if the Opposition want to table a reasoned amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill, they will need to do so by next Tuesday. That means that we shall have only a few hours in which to draft and table such an amendment.
	The Leader of the House often claims to be a champion of proper parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. The timetable that he announced today makes those words ring rather hollow. If he is not prepared to announce a change of business, in future we shall have to judge him on his actions, not his words. I hope that he will be prepared to think again.

Robin Cook: I am suitably intimidated by the right hon. Gentleman's closing remarks. I shall reflect on his comments and consider whether an adjustment would be appropriate. On preparation for the debate, it is not unreasonable to announce a debate that is a clear two and a half weeks away and will still be two weeks away when the Bill is published. That seems an entirely reasonable time for those taking part in the debate—

Greg Knight: The House will not be sitting.

Robin Cook: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to suggest that hon. Members do not work when the House is not sitting. Whenever there is a recess, someone, somewhere, is preparing for the first debate to be held on the day that we return. I do not take seriously the idea that Opposition Members are unwilling to work at any time during the fortnight's recess.

Zimbabwe

Jack Straw: With permission, I should like to make a statement on Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth.
	As the House will be aware, a Commonwealth troika consisting of Presidents Mbeki of South Africa and Obasanjo of Nigeria and Prime Minister John Howard of Australia was authorised by the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to review the outcome of the Zimbabwe elections in the light of the Commonwealth observers' report, and to decide on any action.
	The troika met in London on Tuesday. It had before it the final report of the Commonwealth observers group. That confirmed the findings of the preliminary report that I put before the House in my statement last Thursday. The group concluded that
	"the conditions in Zimbabwe did not adequately allow for a free expression of will by the electors".
	The troika accepted the conclusions in full and decided as a result to suspend Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth for one year with immediate effect. The issue will be revisited in twelve months' time having regard to progress in Zimbabwe, based on the Commonwealth Harare principles and reports from the Commonwealth Secretary-General. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our appreciation to Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo and Prime Minister Howard and in expressing our full support for their conclusions.
	Three months ago, on 20 December, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, of which I was a member, concluded that Zimbabwe was in "serious and persistent violation" of the Harare principles. It was my view at that stage that Zimbabwe should then and there be suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth: I made that case again at CMAG at the end of January, as did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in early March. As the situation in Zimbabwe has deteriorated day by day since December, it follows that we believe that suspension now is fully justified.
	The Commonwealth depends above all on its moral authority and the force of the principles that it codified in Harare in 1991. That is why the decision was so important for the Commonwealth as a whole, as well as—of course—for Zimbabwe. That moral authority is what gives this decision its force. I am in no doubt, from the way in which the Government of Zimbabwe sought actively to divide the Commonwealth and to prevent it from taking decisions about suspension, that they were and are profoundly concerned about the international isolation that suspension signals.
	Tuesday's decision was significant in many respects and above all for the fact that leaders of two key African nations have taken a clear and definitive stand in defence of the Commonwealth's fundamental principles. They have also underlined Africa's commitment to the universal and indivisible principles of democracy and human rights.
	Suspension is one of the strongest measures that the Commonwealth can impose. In the past, countries have been suspended only after the violent overthrow of their elected Government. Zimbabwe's suspension is therefore a new departure. Moreover, the Commonwealth's decision is in addition to the targeted sanctions that the European Union, the United States and now Switzerland have imposed against the leaders of ZANU-PF. European Union Heads of Government also decided, at the European Council in Barcelona last weekend, to ask Foreign Ministers to consider options for further measures.
	What has happened in Zimbabwe is a tragedy, imposed on that once prosperous land by Robert Mugabe. Our commitment and that of the Commonwealth to the people of Zimbabwe remains as strong as ever. We have made it clear since 1997 that the case for land reform in Zimbabwe is very strong and that we were willing to provide considerable financial support for a land reform process that would be transparent and lawful and that would give priority to the needs of Zimbabweans in overcrowded communal lands. That position was supported by the international community as a whole, but rejected by the Mugabe regime.
	At Abuja in early September last year we agreed a pathway for Zimbabwe that would have allowed for a resumption of international aid, including from the UK, for a programme of sustainable land reform implemented in accordance with the rule of law.
	Respect for the rule of law and a return to democratic principles and sensible economic policies are the only way back for Zimbabwe. We remain ready to do all that we can to achieve that. We will continue our programme of assistance for humanitarian and HIV/AIDS projects.
	In the short term, the prospects in Zimbabwe look bleak, which is underlined by the murders since the election of Movement for Democratic Change activists and a commercial farmer and the fact that the Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai has formally been charged with treason. Today, it is all the more urgent that the Government of Zimbabwe commit themselves to healing the divisions in the country and taking the path of genuine reform and national reconciliation, as the leaders of the Commonwealth have called for. In that context, we shall do everything that we can to support Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo and other African partners in their efforts to bring stability back to Zimbabwe.
	That is what the people of Zimbabwe desperately need and today I believe that the whole of the democratic world supports them in that goal.

Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement on Zimbabwe and for, as usual, doing me the courtesy of giving me advance sight of it.
	I remind the right hon. Gentleman that last Thursday, on a similar occasion when he made a statement to the House, he told us:
	"I thought that I had made it palpably obvious that we do not recognise the result or its legitimacy."—[Official Report, 14 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 1035.]
	Would he tell the House what action the Government have taken in respect of diplomatic relations and other protocols with Zimbabwe as a result of that non- recognition of the result and its legitimacy? That is an important question in light of the recent Commonwealth troika decision to suspend Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth.
	I also pay tribute to the outstanding leadership of Prime Minister John Howard of Australia. I suspect that many people feared that the Commonwealth would not be able to be decisive. Prime Minister Howard has succeeded where many thought that he would fail. The Opposition warmly congratulate him and his two colleagues on the troika.
	The Commonwealth has taken action. The House wants to know what action the Government will now take. Once again there is little sign of any new or real initiative in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. May I press him? What discussions has he had in the past two days with President Mbeki of South Africa? I ask that question as South Africa has just announced that it recognises Robert Mugabe as President of Zimbabwe. That mixed signal is damaging not only to the Commonwealth and its democratic principles, but to the people of Zimbabwe, who are looking to the international community for assistance. How can it be that the troika accepted the Commonwealth observers' report but at the same time South Africa accepted its own observer report that the election process was acceptable?
	I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the outlook seems bleak. I am not as sure as he is that what has been done has been persuasive for Mr. Mugabe. Has the Foreign Secretary called in the Zimbabwe high commissioner about the fact that Morgan Tsvangirai was charged with treason yesterday? Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity today to make it clear that any action taken against Morgan Tsvangirai will be unacceptable and an affront to democracy?
	We have been calling for some time for an international coalition to confront Robert Mugabe. Is it not time to act on that? The Commonwealth and members of the South African Development Community and the New Partnership for Africa's Development, as well as the United States and the European Union, must all now put down a marker. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a clear marker is available: that any action against Morgan Tsvangirai that goes beyond the bounds of acceptable democratic behaviour will be seen as a hostile action against all those who believe in democracy and action will be taken accordingly?
	Will the Foreign Secretary now start working towards bringing together that international coalition to work with the countries of southern Africa to bring about a rerun of this month's presidential election, but this time on an independently monitored and clearly free and fair basis and within months rather than years? Will he also agree that if the democratic void in Zimbabwe is not overcome, it will destroy all prospects of success for the region's most promising recent initiative, NEPAD? As one of Zimbabwe's foremost economists, John Robertson, has concluded:
	"The far-reaching vision of NEPAD would not be enough to overcome the fears of political interference among investors."
	Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear today that the threat that Zimbabwe poses to NEPAD is a threat not only to that country, but to the well-being of the whole continent? What pressure will he bring to bear on President Gaddafi of Libya, who is apparently currently bankrolling Robert Mugabe? Libya needs its trade links with the European Union, and now is a good opportunity for the EU to act. On this occasion, will the Foreign Secretary take the lead on that issue?
	I also seek clarification of the Government's stance on Zimbabwe's participation at the Commonwealth games. The Foreign Office has briefed the press that that is a matter for the Commonwealth Games Federation. The Foreign Secretary cannot duck this one; the United Kingdom has to make it clear that Zimbabwe is not welcome at the games. To allow its attendance would make a mockery of the decision to suspend to Zimbabwe from the Councils of the Commonwealth, and he must make his position clear today.
	I have asked many questions, and the House expects answers to them, but I remind the House that, for several years now, we have been calling on the Government to act. They failed to act over the illegal farm occupations; they failed to act over the dubious elections in 2000; they failed to act after Abuja, despite the Foreign Secretary's protestations at that time; and Robert Mugabe had the last laugh at Abuja. All that time we called for the assets of Mugabe and his henchmen to be frozen; we called for travel bans; we called for suspension from the Commonwealth; and the Government told us that we were irresponsible.
	We were told that all was well because the Government had an ethical foreign policy. Well, let me tell the House that history will record that this Government got it wrong, and it is about time that they admitted it. They now have time, belatedly, to get it right by following the suggestions that I have outlined. I repeat the call that I made in the House last Thursday: the time has come for the Government to stop talking and to start doing.

Jack Straw: Let me run through the right hon. Gentleman's specific questions. First, he asked whether we recognise the legitimacy of the result—we do not—and what action we would take. Well, the action that we have taken is to call for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth and to achieve that. He also asked what other action the Government will take now. I shall underline the point that I made to him last week: this is not an issue on which there is serious division between either side of the House. That became evident during the course of those exchanges given the very constructive contributions made by virtually all the Conservative Back Benchers who spoke, some of whom were more willing than others to recognise that the previous Conservative Government's record was not one that was covered in glory. For example, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) spoke, rather eloquently, about the preceding Government's failure to take any effective action in the 1980s.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks what action will be taken. We have taken the action that it has been necessary to take because of the illegitimacy of the Mugabe regime. That includes the sanctions to which I was able to get the EU to agree on 18 February.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks about an international coalition. I have to say that that is exactly what we have been seeking to put together and have, indeed, put together. Again, I say gently to him that it would have been much more difficult for him to have achieved that action in the Commonwealth and almost impossible for him to have achieved that result in the EU, given the other approach that he and his Front-Bench colleagues take to international relations.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks me about diplomatic and other action, and he came close to asking whether we should break off diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe. Let me make the position clear. In 1979, the Government whom he supported decided—Lord Carrington announced this at the time in the other place and the announcement was repeated here—that in future Her Majesty's Government would recognise states, not particular Governments. We have followed that policy since then; it seemed sensible at the time, and it still is.
	We have diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe because of our concerns about the citizens of Zimbabwe and those of other countries and—I say this very specifically—well over 40,000 British citizens and dependants. I have received no representations whatever from the opposition, representatives of British citizens or from anybody else who cares about the future of Zimbabwe that we should either break off or reduce diplomatic relations. I judge that it would not be helpful to the people whom we care about or to democracy, were we to do so. If I receive representations from those quarters, of course I shall consider them and make their position known to the House.
	The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the Commonwealth games. The decision formally is for the Commonwealth Games Federation. That is my view and the Government's view. Throughout we have sought to impose sanctions with adverse consequences on the people responsible for bringing Zimbabwe to this sorry pass. I have received no representations which suggest that the young people who are involved in sport in Zimbabwe are responsible for stuffing ballot boxes and murdering opposition opponents. If I receive such representations, of course we shall take full notice of them. Meanwhile, it is entirely right that the Commonwealth Games Federation should follow the examples of countries that have been suspended from the Commonwealth, previously or currently, namely Pakistan and Fiji. It should draw a clear distinction between the sanctions that we are taking against the undemocratic and, in the case of Zimbabwe, violent forces and target those people and their actions, while making it crystal clear that we are on the side of people of democracy who want to celebrate the best in their country, which in this case includes sport.

Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary understand that welcome though the suspension is, for many of us it is overshadowed by an acute sense of disappointment that it became necessary and that Robert Mugabe would not respond to the moral authority of the Commonwealth and draw back from the actions that have ultimately precipitated the suspension? For many of us, welcome for the suspension is overshadowed by a profound anxiety for the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, both urban and rural, who now face the prospect of six years of ignominy and isolation, of corrupt military adventurism in the Congo, of economic mismanagement and even of food and energy shortages.
	Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the decision taken by the troika establishes a new precedent for the Commonwealth and that it would be right now to consider the extent to which mechanisms of the Commonwealth should be adjusted so as to allow for suspension more easily if such circumstances were to arise in future? Some have considered that the proposals made by the high level review group in this regard were rather lacklustre. Is it not time for much more responsive mechanisms to be established?
	On the Commonwealth games, in which I should declare an historical interest if nothing else, may I remind the Foreign Secretary that on two occasions during the Conservative Government there was a mixture between sport and politics? The consequence for the 1986 Commonwealth games was a substantial boycott and the success of the games hung in the balance. That was because a view was taken of the political attitudes of the then Government. An even more salutary example was the effort of Mrs. Thatcher to persuade British competitors not to compete in the Moscow Olympic games. It is fair to say that her efforts received rather mixed results.

Denis MacShane: Seb Coe won his gold.

Jack Straw: As my hon. Friend says, Seb Coe won a gold, so those efforts did not permeate even the Conservative party, still less the country.
	I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his remarks. I share his view that the decision of the Commonwealth troika and therefore of the Commonwealth, although welcome in itself, in context casts an acute sense of disappointment at the fact that the sanctions are necessary.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about profound anxiety, and I should have responded to the point made by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) about Morgan Tsvangirai. We have not had to call in the high commissioner from Zimbabwe to explain what we think about the arrest and subsequent charging of Morgan Tsvangirai with treason. One deals with opponents in a democracy by argument, not by arrest and pursuit of them on trumped-up charges. If those charges are pursued by Robert Mugabe, the international consequences for his Government in terms of isolation and, I suspect, greater sanctions, will be considerable. We remain very concerned about the position of Morgan Tsvangirai and other members of the opposition, but above all about those who are suffering daily the most acute violence in that country.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) asked whether I agree that there should be a new precedent to widen the circumstances in which the Commonwealth could take such action. Personally, I think that that should happen. To those who think that Zimbabwe was not bothered about the result, I say that for a very long time, Dr. Stan Mudenge, the Foreign Minister of Zimbabwe, used to chair the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. That is one reason why no action could be taken against Zimbabwe for such a long time, and would not have been taken even if the skills of the right hon. Member for Devizes had been brought into play.
	Once Dr. Mudenge had vacated the chair, he argued for years, like the good barrack-room lawyer that he is, that CMAG and the Commonwealth had no right to suspend any country from the Councils of the Commonwealth except where a democratic regime had been overthrown in a violent coup d'etat. We managed to overcome that, but it is one reason why he refused the use of CMAG to sort out a land deal, and why President Obasanjo had to create an equivalent of CMAG, which met in Abuja. It is also why the decision is in itself historic. We must ensure that better structures are put in place so that everyone who signed up to the ironically named Harare principles understands that they are not just words, but require commitment by Governments and Heads of Governments, and that action will follow if they are broken.

Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend has taken a consistent, firm and principled attitude throughout and, with the troika, deserves congratulations on a result that helps to salvage and maintain the credibility of the Commonwealth. Will he say a little more about the one-year suspension? It sounds a little difficult because, after all, it would be reviewed in any event, and it is extremely unlikely that there would be a rerun of the election during that period. Indeed, the actions of the Mugabe Government since the election have been very negative.
	As the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) mentioned, part of the tragedy is that all the grand declarations of President Mbeki and other leaders on African renaissance and NEPAD are undermined by a picture of ill-governance and maltreatment of the opposition. That means that it will be increasingly difficult for private investors in a highly competitive world to look to Africa and provide the renaissance, through NEPAD, which we support.

Jack Straw: I thank my right hon. Friend for his initial comments, and I agree that Zimbabwe has already had a terrible effect on not just its own economy but that of all countries in southern Africa, and investor confidence throughout the continent. That is one more reason why I believe that the decision taken on Tuesday by the leaders of two of the most important countries in Africa is so important. It draws a line between those who subscribe to principles of democracy, as the leaders of South Africa and Nigeria of course do, and those who follow a different, violent and undemocratic path. I very much hope that, notwithstanding that, NEPAD and the determination by democratic Africa and the international community to help Africa to rebuild its prosperity will continue. No one should be in any doubt about the damage that President Mugabe has already done and could continue to do.
	My right hon. Friend asked about the time period. The Committee stated in paragraph 8 of its conclusions that the suspension will be for one year with immediate effect and that the issue will be revisited in 12 months' time, having regard to progress in Zimbabwe based on the Commonwealth Harare principles and reports from the Commonwealth Secretary-General. I take that to mean that the suspension will continue unless the Harare principles have meanwhile started to be properly observed and there has been a positive report from the Commonwealth Secretary-General.

Douglas Hogg: Although I of course welcome the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth, that cannot be the end of the matter. Does the Secretary of State accept that we have a special interest as there are 40,000 UK passport holders in Zimbabwe? Does he agree that the time has come for us to explore with other Commonwealth states how we can make Mr. Mugabe and his lieutenants personally accountable for the crimes that are being committed in Zimbabwe either by himself directly or by his lieutenants in his name?
	Does the Secretary of State agree that, although the scale is different, Mr. Mugabe's policies of murder, arson, ethnic cleansing, intimidation and vote rigging have a great deal in common with those of Mr. Milosevic? Should we not explore ways in which Mr. Mugabe could be brought before a competent criminal court, so that if he is convicted, he spends his declining years not in Government house, to which he has no entitlement, but in premises that are equally secure but rather less accommodating?

Jack Straw: I agree with the entirety of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. This is not the end of the matter, and we have a direct interest in what happens in Zimbabwe because at least 40,000 British citizens and their dependants are there. However, I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that even were those 40,000 British citizens not there, our concern about the humanitarian and economic disaster would be exactly the same, because it is a concern without regard to race, colour or citizenship.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that we must be indivisible and universal in applying principles of human rights and international crimes. There is a difference between what Milosevic did and what has happened in Zimbabwe under the ZANU-PF regime, but it is only a matter of degree. One reason why I am profoundly committed to the establishment of the International Criminal Court is that if we are to avoid a repetition of what has happened in Zimbabwe, as well as other disasters, it is hugely important that leaders do not get themselves into a position whereby they believe that they are wholly immune from any possibility of real sanction against their person, as well as their property, for their actions.

Harry Barnes: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his approach in leaving open matters such as humanitarian aid in connection with HIV projects and the position that he has taken on sport. There is clearly a distinction between the people of Zimbabwe and the regime that has forced itself upon them. We need to target the regime as strongly as possible while doing whatever we can to assist the people. I commend that general approach to my right hon. Friend in respect of some of his other briefs.

Jack Straw: I cannot think what my hon. Friend is talking about.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. All along, President Mugabe set a trap into which he wanted the United Kingdom to fall—namely, that we would target black Zimbabweans on a blunderbuss basis so that he would be able credibly to claim that it was a case of white versus black. So far, we have avoided that trap, and we must continue to do so.

Nicholas Winterton: Although I warmly welcome the decision of the troika, acting on behalf of the Commonwealth, to suspend ZANU-PF and the Government of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth's counsels for 12 months, does the Secretary of State accept that the recognition of President Mugabe by President Mbeki of South Africa undermines the influence of that decision and sends out quite the wrong messages?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman take on board the deep concern of member states throughout the Commonwealth and hon. Members on both sides of House about the safety of Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, and other opponents of President Mugabe, against whom he is taking brutal action in complete disregard of the views of the world?
	Bearing in mind that on 6 March the Prime Minister expressed concern and said that he would consider the entry of Zimbabwe into the Commonwealth games in light of the outcome of the elections, does the Foreign Secretary accept that if Zimbabwe competes in the Commonwealth games, the impact of the decision on the people of Zimbabwe will be lessened? I am visiting all the sites of the Commonwealth games tomorrow.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support, and the House needs to be grateful to him for the consistent position that he has adopted on Zimbabwe and for his interest in the country over many years.
	I will put more details before the House as soon as I receive them, but I do not think that more should be read into the South African Government's decision on recognition than could be read into the fact that, for reasons that I have explained, we recognise states that still have diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe. We cannot take away from President Mbeki the fact that as a member of the troika that met on Tuesday, he, with the other two members, decided on behalf of the 54 members of the Commonwealth to take the action, which is unprecedented in the circumstances, to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. For that, President Mbeki, President Obasanjo and Prime Minister Howard ought to be applauded.
	On the Commonwealth games, the hon. Gentleman put his point rather gently, but I say to him that that is a matter for the Commonwealth Games Federation, not for me. I have given my opinion to the House. Earlier examples in which people have sought to make Government decisions and impose them on games federations have not been particularly successful because such decisions appear to be punitive to innocent people, namely sports people, rather than to the Government concerned.

Andrew MacKay: The Foreign Secretary must be right to state that the welcome suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth is not the end of the matter. May I urge him to give us an undertaking that he will regularly return to the Dispatch Box in the next few months to make statements and initiate debates? The House can then show, first, that it is totally united against the Mugabe regime; secondly, that we will not stand idly by if opposition leaders are persecuted by a flawed judiciary; and thirdly, that we in no way recognise the corrupt election that has just taken place.

Jack Straw: I apologise to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for my failure to answer his question about Morgan Tsvangirai. We will do everything that we can in difficult circumstances to help ensure the safety of all those who have been unjustifiably accused of crimes, including Mr. Tsvangirai, although the hon. Gentleman will understand the limitations of what we can do in practice because of the nature of the Mugabe regime.
	I say to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) that I have sought to keep the House fully informed at every stage, and I will continue to do so.

John Barrett: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the responsible decision by Nigeria and South Africa will give a welcome boost to the New Partnership for Africa's Development? Will he, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister be championing NEPAD at the G8 and in other forums?

Jack Straw: I agree that the decision is a welcome boost to NEPAD, and it would have been have really serious for NEPAD if the decision had gone the other way. No two people are more committed to NEPAD's success than my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. The Prime Minister has been in the lead on the matter throughout all the discussions in the G8, and I know that he is utterly determined to pursue NEPAD to the benefit of the whole of Africa when the G8 meets later this year.

Julian Lewis: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the tactics employed by Mr. Mugabe before, during and after the election campaign resemble nothing so closely as the tactics employed by fascists in the 1920s in Italy, and by the Nazis in the 1930s in Germany? Given that some Opposition Members have been consistent supporters of the International Criminal Court, will he give an undertaking that the fate that befalls Mr. Mugabe when that court is up and running will be analogous to the fate that befell the Nazis in 1945 at Nuremberg? Will he give a specific undertaking that the Government will initiate the appropriate proceedings?
	Finally, may I gently and without rancour say to the right hon. Gentleman that it ill-behoves a Labour Foreign Secretary and a Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman to lecture the Conservatives on the importance of keeping sport and politics separate when—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Jack Straw: On the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question, we have to be careful about the direct comparisons we make, for the reasons cited by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). It is a question of degree. Do I believe that Mugabe and his people are probably guilty of crimes that should come before the International Criminal Court? Yes. Should they be taken before the court? Yes. Should they be punished appropriately? Yes.

Charles Hendry: Will the Foreign Secretary be more specific about his objectives regarding Mugabe himself? Is it an objective that he be removed from office, that he resign, or that there be new, free and fair elections in which Mugabe would either be free to take part, or not be allowed to take part? Will he give us some idea of the time scale of his policy? He has made it clear that we are in for a long haul, but he will understand the House's desire to be able to judge the effectiveness of his policy. Does he believe that that will be possible in six months, 12 months, two years—or when?

Jack Straw: I think that I speak for the whole House when I say that if I had the means, I would want to ensure that President Mugabe resigns and accepts that he stole the election, and that free and fair, non-violent elections, properly monitored and observed, take place. However, as long as Mugabe is where he is, that will not happen, which is why we have to resort to the measures I have announced, which are necessary in the circumstances, but unwelcome given the context.
	As for the time scale, it is important that the House neither underestimates nor overestimates what we as a country and a Government can do. I cannot say with any certainty how long it will take to remove Mugabe and his ZANU-PF henchmen from power. That is ultimately in the hands, not of us or the international community, but of the people of Zimbabwe, influenced by the circumstances there.
	Of one thing I am certain, knowing about all the other awful regimes around the world. Regimes that are undemocratic, violent and based on stolen elections are inherently unstable, and therefore only temporary. Although a difficult and dark period lies immediately ahead, I believe that ultimately the future of the people of Zimbabwe will be far better.

Hunting with Dogs

Alun Michael: Our manifesto gave a commitment on hunting with hounds, stating that:
	"we will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view.
	We will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue."
	I have been given the responsibility of leading that enabling process. In reaching my decision on how to proceed, I have listened carefully to what has been said in the debates. The votes this week leave the two Houses diametrically opposed—indeed, I have rarely seen an issue on which the divisions have been greater. It is precisely for that reason that it is right to see how it can be resolved with as much agreement as possible.
	We want to respect all views, but that must start with respect for the strength with which the Commons made its views clear on Monday. I promise to engage with everyone who has an interest in this issue to make the legislation practical and robust. I promise to bring to the House of Commons a Bill that will deal with this issue effectively once and for all, and that will make good law. I earnestly hope that we can achieve that by finding as much common ground as possible. I propose a process of consultation on the practical issues of detail with a wide variety of interested parties. That consultation period will last no more than six months, including work on drafting a new Bill.
	We promised in our manifesto that this issue would be resolved. Should there be no way through, and should the new Bill be frustrated in its passage rather than scrutinised and improved, the Government could not properly stand in the way of the application of the Parliament Act, which of course would be a matter for this House. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Alun Michael: I ask Conservative Members to listen carefully to what is being said. The Government would prefer the Bill to proceed by debate and through a search for common ground wherever possible, with conflict tempered by tolerance.

Desmond Swayne: Where is the tolerance?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not understand the word "tolerance". I suggest that he listen.
	If that process is frustrated and the Bill rejected, we would reintroduce the Bill as quickly as possible to this House. It would then be for this House and its procedures and for Mr. Speaker to determine whether the Parliament Act should apply. However, the reason for re-engaging in a process to try to achieve wider agreement is precisely that we recognise that there are legitimate concerns in the countryside about pest control, land management and other practicalities, and we want to address those issues in the Bill. Those concerns were raised both in this House and in the other place.
	I reiterate our manifesto commitment that
	"we have no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting."
	I also want to stress to everyone in the countryside that hunting is at the margins of the real debate about the priorities that we set out in the rural White Paper, which are to ensure that people in the countryside get access to good public services, proper investment, sound environmental policies and sustainable development.
	On the content of the Bill itself, I believe that some common ground can best be found by focusing on two general principles. The report by Lord Burns on hunting with dogs examined in great detail the principles of cruelty and utility. We propose to frame legislation that prohibits activity based on those two principles rather than simply setting out a list of activities to be banned.
	The Burns report did not provide a route map, however. That is why further thought should be given in applying these principles, and that is what I shall be doing over the next few weeks.
	I am sure that the House will have noted the very clear assurances that I have given today about timing and outcome, and about the engagement of those campaigning for a ban on hunting, of Members of this House, and of those involved in land management. I recognise that this is a difficult issue, especially as we all know that there are other pressing matters, such as legislation on crime, health and education, that also demand our attention. We must deliver on our central promises on reform and investment in our public services.
	I ask the House to trust me to deliver, and to join me in a process that is guaranteed to achieve an outcome as soon as possible. I look forward to engaging with colleagues on both sides of the House and in the other place. The process that I am setting out today will ensure that we deliver on our manifesto commitment to resolve this issue during the lifetime of this Parliament.

Ann Winterton: I thank the Minister for letting me have sight of his statement this afternoon. I had tremendous difficulties with my computer at the weekend, and I understand that he had similar difficulties today. I received the statement hot off the press only a few minutes ago, therefore. However, I am grateful at least for the attempt to get it to me in good time. The proposals that the Minister has announced today, which will be introduced in the next Session of Parliament by the use of the Parliament Act if necessary, say very little and shed very little light on how the Government see the way forward, especially after two full days of debate this week.
	The proposals are most certainly not a middle way. However, in their small print, they show the way in which the Minister proposes to curtail the freedoms enjoyed by generations of British people. Can the Minister take powers, on a whim, to make regulations under the new "necessity" test, in the Burns report, of "cruelty and utility"—"vermin control"—which will, at a stroke, maim hunting as we have known it, except for a few foot packs in some upland areas? Hunting would then only be tolerated under licence, with rights of appeal given to anti-hunt organisations if a licence were granted.
	The devil will, as ever, be in the detail. When will we see precisely what regulatory powers are planned? How will they be implemented, and by what means? With whom will the Minister consult? How will he reassure the countryside that he is not just buying time? Many believe that the decisions are already taken, as The Times today makes clear. Will he confirm that, in addition to the list of consultees on page 3, he will fully consult those who support field and country sports and foxhunting in particular? How will he ensure that the consultation focuses on other real issues such as species management, conservation and employment?
	It is obvious to one and all in the House and elsewhere that the Government are caught between a rock and a hard place of their own making. They are caught by their own Back Benchers, who are deeply unhappy about the failure of Government policy, and by the fear of a countryside march of up to 1 million people joining together in comradeship and common purpose, as they did before. The issue is not animal cruelty; it never was. It is about the settling of old scores.
	The message must go out the length and breadth of this land: we must fight for our country traditions and values. That fight for freedom and liberty begins today.

Alun Michael: It is very disappointing that the Conservative response has been so narrow and petty. It is clear that Opposition Front-Bench Members are determined to create division and not to help a process that will create good legislation. It is the process of creating good legislation that is important—[Interruption.] I invite Opposition Members to stop gnashing their teeth, and to listen to what I am saying in response to serious points made by the hon. Lady—her contribution included serious points among its scattering of prejudice.
	We seek to introduce legislation based on principles. Legislation often bans things—frequently, it involves a curtailment of liberty—and the House must ensure that that is done carefully, judiciously and appropriately. Surely that is the purpose of writing good legislation. It is ludicrous of the hon. Lady to suggest, in her words, that I intend to take powers "on a whim". The House will decide exactly what legislation is passed. My responsibility is to help that process and to enable us to have good law.
	The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) is right to say that the devil is in the detail, which is why I have announced a process in which the detail and the practicalities will be discussed. She asked for the sort of information appropriate to a Second Reading debate, after the publication of a Bill. As I indicated, we are starting a process. I assure the hon. Lady that consultation will be open to anyone.
	I am not sure what it says on page 3 of The Times, as I have not read it today—

Ann Winterton: I was referring to page 3 of the statement.

Alun Michael: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon. She was speaking about The Times, so I thought that that was the organ to which her pagination applied. I know what is in my statement; it is The Times that I have not read.
	I can tell the hon. Member for Congleton that the consultation process will be very open. Certainly, people who engage in hunting will be part of the process, and they will be fully involved. Indeed, I met representatives from the campaign for hunting yesterday. My door has been kept open to that organisation, as it has to other bodies with an interest in the matter. I had friendly and useful exchanges with them, because I am engaged in a process of dialogue.
	The hon. Member for Congleton spoke about marches. I do not recall any Conservative Government being swayed by marches of any sort, whereas this Government do take notice of strong opinion, regardless of whether it is expressed by demonstration or by the process of consultation. We respect people's freedom to protest, but I ask those who consider protesting about the issues involved in this matter to recognise that they are being invited to take part in a process. They will be listened to and they will have an opportunity to influence the legislative proposals that come before the House. That seems to be the biggest difference between Government and Opposition.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members are trying to catch my eye. It would be extremely helpful, therefore, if hon. Members raised only one point with the Minister.

Michael Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement today. My question will no doubt be put to him by people outside the House. If, after the process outlined today, the House of Commons once again votes to ban cruel and unnecessary sports such as lowland fox hunting, and if the House of Lords rejects that view, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government use the Parliament Act to allow this House to have its say?

Alun Michael: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for my statement. In essence, he asks whether the Government would apply the Parliament Act. However, use of the Parliament Act is a matter for the House. As I made clear, that process would be enabled by the Government if it became necessary, but we very much hope that the process will be one of engagement, and of improvement of any legislation that is brought forward. Our preference is that the Parliament Act will not be needed. I hope that that will be the case, but my hon. Friend is right to understand that the Government would enable use of the Parliament Act, if necessary. In that way, the House of Commons will be able to decide the matter.

Norman Baker: I welcome the fact that the Minister has made an early statement to the House, following the debates in both Houses earlier this week. Since 1997, Parliament has spent more than 130 hours discussing hunting. The Minister is therefore right to say that we need to reach a conclusion "once and for all", to use the words in his statement. However, I notice that the process that he has set out will take another 12 months to complete.
	Does not the Minister's statement take us back to square one, in that all options are open again? The Minister has changed the way in which matters will be dealt with. Rightly, he has moved away from discussing particular bans, and has proposed that we look at questions of cruelty and utility. Will he accept, however, that the definition of cruelty is subjective, and that hon. Members of all parties will reach different conclusions about it? How does he intend to reconcile subjective views of that nature?
	Will the Minister accept that his statement could be interpreted by some as code for a sort of middle way solution, which will stop hare coursing but allow some foxhunting to continue? That would be in line with the briefings that senior people in Government gave to the press last weekend.
	Finally, it may be admirable to try to bridge the unbridgeable—and I applaud the Minister's attempt—but I hope that he will clarify his intentions, in light of the question from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Bill will be subject to a free vote? Will he also ensure that, if the House of Commons votes for a form of legislation that bans all foxhunting and hunting with dogs, he will enable the Parliament Act to be used, and that the will of the Commons will triumph?

Alun Michael: I thank the hon. Gentleman for a series of interesting questions. The Government are promoting discussion and debate. We are taking a little time to try to seek agreement and to achieve as much common ground as possible.
	I do not think that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is right to say that my statement takes us back to the beginning. I explained the process that will be undertaken, and the principles on which it is based, and I suggested that what we need to discuss are the practicalities. For those reasons, therefore, my statement moves matters forward.
	The hon. Member for Lewes said that the definition of cruelty is subjective. I am sure that there will be much discussion of that when we come to scrutinise the legislation, but the law is already clear that cruelty is defined as that which causes unnecessary suffering. In practice, the concept is used in the courts in a variety of ways, so I do not think that there is the uncertainty about meaning that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the proposals did not look a little like the middle way. I assure him that this is not the middle way. He also referred to briefings from elsewhere in Government, but I know of no such briefings. I assure him that the only authoritative briefings on this issue come from me. If he has any doubts about anything that he hears and which is ascribed to someone else in Government, the hon. Gentleman should give me a call and I will put him right.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the question of hunting will continue to be dealt with on a free vote. I can confirm that it will. His final question referred to the nature of the Bill. The Government have made it clear that the Parliament Act is enabled to allow the House of Commons to come to decisions. The use of the Parliament Act is a matter for the House of Commons. We will not stand in the way of that. We will enable the process if it is needed, but I again make it clear that I am dealing with that point now so that we can put it to one side and ensure that we do not spend ages discussing whether the Parliament Act will be used. We should prefer it if the Parliament Act were not used, as we want to deal with the matter by seeking common ground, through debate and through the normal processes of this House and the other place.

Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I had hoped to receive from him today a precise statement that Monday's decision by the House of Commons that a full ban on all forms of hunting with dogs would be introduced as a substantive Bill as soon as possible? However, that is not what we heard.
	My right hon. Friend asks us to trust him. I certainly trust him, as I have a high personal regard for him. In the end, however, the only thing that I will trust is a Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give a very clear answer to the question that I am about to ask him. His answer will govern my approach to this matter and—for what it is worth—to other matters that arise in this House for the remainder of this Parliament.
	Let us assume that, after the consultation period, the Government introduce a Bill that contains some exceptions, and that the House of Commons on a free vote decides to remove all those exceptions and to impose a complete ban on all forms of hunting with dogs. In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend give me the clear assurance that that would be the Bill for which the Parliament Act would be invoked?

Alun Michael: First, I am aware of my right hon. Friend's preference. No one who has heard him speak on the matter could be in the slightest doubt about what he wants to happen. However, I hope that the promise that what he called a substantive Bill would be introduced as soon as possible will encourage him. I have suggested a specific time scale for that, and again I hope that he will accept that the intention is to provide certainty, for him and for the rest of the House.
	I am absolutely clear that if the Government introduce a Bill that is amended in the House of Commons, our promise in relation to allowing the Parliament Act to obtain will apply. It would be a matter for the Commons. I think I cannot underline enough the important words "This would be a matter for the House of Commons".

John Maples: I am sure that when the Minister first entered the House he, like me, considered protecting the rights and freedoms of minorities one of its most important functions. On that basis, we in the House have for many years continued to tolerate things of which, individually or collectively, we disapprove. Is it not a very sad day for the Minister and the House when he invites us to abandon that long-established principle?

Alun Michael: There are many minorities whose freedom of action is curtailed in a variety of ways because the House has decided through history that a particular thing should be banned. That applies whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to bear-baiting, cockfighting or similar activities relating to animals, or to various other activities that are regarded as offences because one person's ability to exercise his or her freedom of action impinges on the rights and obligations of others. I am afraid that, by simply referring to the freedom of the individual, the hon. Gentleman is not helping us to arrive at appropriate and robust legislation.
	Yes, I believe entirely that it is the responsibility of a majority to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals; but it must be done in a manner that also ensures that where there is a principle that should not be offended against, that principle is upheld.

Chris Mullin: My right hon. Friend is a very reasonable man. He has talked a good deal about the need for discussion and debate. May I express the hope that there will not be too much discussion and debate? After all, we have had rather a lot of that already. What we seek is a watertight Bill, and what I seek from the Minister today is an assurance that what will result at the end of this is not a Bill leading to years of litigation, with judges driving a coach and horses through the various definitions in the Bill, followed by demands for yet another Bill. We must bring this matter to an end; the will of Parliament must prevail.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is important to produce a Bill that is effective and watertight, and will not lead to a mass of litigation. I assure him that I am not in the business of increasing the incomes of lawyers, or the amount of activity in the courts. I will seek to apply the principle that he has put to us to the drafting of the legislation.
	My hon. Friend says that there has been enough discussion and debate. I suspect that in embarking on this process the person I am condemning to the greatest quantity of discussion and debate is myself, in listening mode but also in discussion mode, trying to tease out the best way of implementing the legislation. I shall try to live up to the term that my hon. Friend used in his vicious attack, and continue to be a reasonable man.

Nicholas Soames: Does the Minister accept that by himself voting against the middle way the other night, he demonstrated that he was not prepared to listen? Does he also accept that to millions in the country at large, and to all who love hunting and the countryside, the Government's sense of priorities is astonishing and impossible to understand? Finally, let me tell him this: the countryside will fight for liberty, livelihood and freedom. What he proposes does indeed mark a black day for freedom in this country.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes a rather populist point. Most people whom I meet in the countryside would set as priorities for action by the Government the very actions to which we have given priority—the revival of the economy in rural areas, encouraging communities in rural areas, looking at the future of food and farming and promoting tourism in rural areas. They would expect us to give priority to issues that affect people's everyday lives in rural areas, such as education, health and transport, in which we have invested massively more than the Conservative Government.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the way in which I voted on Monday had somehow compromised my role. This issue has been before the House on a free vote on numerous occasions. It would be a very odd Member of Parliament who had not reached a conclusion on questions such as those that were before us on Monday; it would be a very odd Member of Parliament who failed to vote on them.
	I have always been absolutely straight and honest with people I have met—including members of the campaign for hunting—to ensure that they know which way I have voted on the matter over the years. I have also made it absolutely clear to them, and to every group, that I have been given a separate role by the Prime Minister, which is to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion. I shall do the job as objectively as I can: having personal opinions takes away none of my responsibility for enabling that process.

Mike O'Brien: I welcome the preparedness to invoke the Parliament Act, should that be needed, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that it could not be invoked in the next Session with a new Bill, and that the process would therefore probably take a further year? Will he also confirm that the Government have moved from a position of neutrality—of merely facilitating Parliament's arrival at a conclusion based on one of the three options—to the undertaking of a new process to secure a Bill based on common ground? Has he any idea what that common ground would be?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right: the process will take a little longer by the means I have proposed today than by the means of applying the Parliament Act to the previous Bill. That, however, is a price that we consider worth paying to try to avoid the continuing danger of a stalemate between the two Houses, and to find as much common ground as possible between us and those who feel strongly about these issues, both in this House and outside.
	My hon. Friend asked whether the Government had moved. The Government have not moved from being neutral on the issue, but we have accepted a responsibility that we gave ourselves in our manifesto before the general election—a responsibility for enabling Parliament to reach a conclusion. That is the responsibility I have taken on in trying to find the best possible legislation in order to reach the best possible conclusion. I see that as a role for enabling Parliament.

Ann Widdecombe: Does the right hon. Gentleman share my regret that discussions on this important issue should be couched in terms of class warfare? Does he accept that many of us who have been involved in this and other campaigns have a long record of fighting for the welfare of animals? Does he find it remotely likely that when the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) mounted a campaign to protect tortured bears in China, he was declaring class warfare on the communist regime there?
	In every free vote since 1987, has it not been standard practice for the Minister and the Opposition spokesman to give their personal views and then to make clear that they nevertheless have a duty to the House? Finally, is not the method of resolving the problem that the right hon. Gentleman has announced just a recipe for yet more delay, and for allowing the issue to run up and down the parliamentary system when we should be discussing other issues? Should the matter not now be brought to a firm conclusion? The House has shown its view; we are the democratically elected body.

Alun Michael: I can agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Lady said. I certainly share her regret that the issue should be debated in terms of class warfare, and I am sure that members of her own Front Bench will have heard her injunction. I will leave it to her to debate issues with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), but I am sure that any debate of that kind would be worth listening to, given two such robust participants.
	I endorse the right hon. Lady's point about the difference between a personal view and a Minister's responsibility to the House. As a shadow Minister, I always took the view that a similar need exists to distinguish between personal responsibilities and one's responsibility to the House in trying to enable good legislation. On several occasions when I was in opposition, contributions and discussions—sometimes in the House, sometimes outside it—helped the Government to improve legislation. I hope that the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) has listened to this exchange.

Kate Hoey: May I welcome the fact that the Minister has not introduced a Bill today to ban hunting with dogs? That shows that the many people in the countryside who think that we should not spend huge amounts of time on this issue are being listened to, and that a way exists to satisfy most sensible people. Do the Government have a view on cruelty, and does the Minister have a view on what Lord Burns himself said in the House of Lords? He said:
	"Naturally, people ask whether we were implying"—
	in the Burns report—
	"that hunting is cruel . . . The short answer to that question is no."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 533.]
	What is the Government's view on the Burns report?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend refers to comments made in another place, rather than to the report itself. One problem is that many people pick out a particular paragraph from the Burns report and use it to justify the position that they adopted before reading it. I take the view that it is important for this House to be able to deal with cruelty in respect of hunting with dogs—that is what the issue is all about. We should do so by referring to the useful work undertaken by Lord Burns, and to the practicalities that I referred to in my statement. That is the subject for consultation in the next few weeks, and that process will certainly be interesting. However, it will be informed by the contents of the Burns report.

Alan Duncan: Was not the Parliament Act designed to allow the House of Commons to get its way only when the House of Lords thwarts a specific and detailed legislative commitment in a general election manifesto? The Labour party's last manifesto makes no such specific commitment to a ban; instead, deliberately chosen, mealy-mouthed, ambiguous words are used. Is it not a complete abuse of the Parliament Act, therefore, to try to invoke it in this case, or can the Minister cite a precedent for its being used for a non-manifesto or non-budgetary issue?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman hangs together several errors and imprecisions. The point is that, should the two Houses reach an impasse, we will enable the Commons to have its way, but I have made it clear time and again that we hope that the process will avoid that outcome. A very precise manifesto commitment was made to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the legislation. The hon. Gentleman should examine that precise commitment and recognise that it is on that authority that the House of Commons is able to proceed. However, if possible we want to achieve maximum common ground for all who engage in the debate. That is as much an offer—as it were—to the House of Lords as an illustration of what would happen should such an impasse arise.

Tony Banks: The comments of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) have already made clear to my right hon. Friend the impossibility of securing consensus in any form. He pointed out in his statement that the two Houses are diametrically opposed. Where can common ground be found? There is no common ground. I do not know why he wants to spend six months chasing shadows. A clash is obviously coming between this House and the House of Lords, so he ought to face up to that fact. To use some of the hon. Lady's rhetoric, he might as well cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war.

Alun Michael: I am not sure that I should take much notice of that encouragement. As my hon. Friend knows, by nature I am an optimist. He will also know that I am a Labour and Co-operative MP, so I seek wherever possible to co-operate and work with others. I am even open to co-operating with Opposition Front Benchers and other Conservative Members—if they will engage in the process, rather than simply writing it off at the outset. Similarly, many in the other place—some of whom disagree passionately with the views of people such as my hon. Friend—nevertheless say, "Let us talk. Jaw-jaw is better than war-war, so let us examine the options and see where they take us. Let us discuss the practicalities." I very much hope that matters will proceed in that way.

Simon Thomas: May I give a cautious welcome to what the Minister said today, particularly on the process and the new twin principles of utility and cruelty? I hope that he will introduce a Bill that is genuinely based on those twin principles and will not approach countryside activities in a prejudiced way. Does he acknowledge that the difference in votes cast in this House and in the other place reflects a wider disagreement in society about the way in which the issue needs to be addressed? Within the six-month period he has granted himself, he needs to engage in that wider public debate. We are not the only people who have something to say on hunting and cruelty.
	In that context, he will have received a letter from Glyn Davies, Chairman of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee in the National Assembly for Wales. It asks him specifically to take into account more than 900 submissions to the committee on hunting in Wales, and further to take into account in the legislative process the Committee's deliberations on the best way forward for hunting in Wales, which is characterised by upland areas. Will he undertake to do that?

Alun Michael: I am happy to respond positively to each of those three points. First, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are seeking to legislate through the application of principles. I have outlined those principles, it is clear that he understood my comments, and that is the way forward. Secondly, he is also right to say it is not just a question of views in this House and the other place. There is wider disagreement in society—and in the countryside—and it is right that we engage with people outside this House. He will know that I have met a wide variety of groups in England and Wales that wish to make representations on the issue, and I shall continue to do so. Thirdly, it is certainly right to take into account views from Wales, including views expressed by the National Assembly for Wales and its Members. I have not seen the letter to which he refers, but I would expect to be able to respond positively to it.

Paddy Tipping: My right hon. Friend is right to establish a short period of consultation, but he is fundamentally wrong if he believes that consensus can be achieved for a Bill with a framework of utility and cruelty. Will he stick to a closely defined timetable, so that those of us who live in, and represent, rural areas can get on with the real issues that affect the countryside?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend says that I would be wrong to believe that consensus can be achieved, but I have not used that word—I used the term "common ground". We want to achieve as much common ground as possible, and in that regard I am being realistic. I am not hoping that somebody will suddenly wave a magic wand and achieve consensus across the piece on this difficult issue.
	As I said, the timetable for consultation on the practical matters to which I referred, and for the drafting of legislation, will be very tight. The answer to his question is therefore a simple yes.

Edward Garnier: The Minister properly suggests that there should be a six-month period of consultation, and he tells us that he is a co-operative person and Member of Parliament. In the interests of informing himself over the next six months, will he come to Harborough in Leicestershire, where five hunts operate, the better to learn about the utility of hunting and the absence of cruelty? I appreciate that he takes a different view, but will he please take the opportunity to meet the people in Leicestershire with an interest in the subject? I invite him to come and stay with me. In Committee, I invited the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) to do so, and she would be very welcome. The right hon. Gentleman could bring his wife and his private office staff, but I urge him to come to hear at first hand the worries of my constituents. He could then come back to Parliament after the six-month consultation period better informed for that visit.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his invitation. I referred to a period of six months of consulting and drafting in order to get the legislation right, and we want to stay within that time scale. He generously invites me to Leicestershire—I am very popular; I am being invited to visit many parts of the country—but his underlying question is whether I will listen to people involved in hunting, consider the practicalities and listen to their experience. Yes I will, which is why I visited a hunt a few weeks ago at the invitation of the campaign for hunting and devoted as much time as I could to listening to people's views. I did so partly to hear those views and partly to engage with the practicalities, which is one of the reasons why it is important to have the process that I have introduced today. I make no specific promise about where I will spend my time in the next few months.

Gordon Prentice: I trust my right hon. Friend and we all know of his deep personal commitment to an outright ban. The House will know my view that this is a wasted opportunity and that, even with this timetable, we might still be discussing the issue right up to 2004. Who wants that? The Minister talked about consultation—endless consultation. What will we learn from six months of consultation that we do not already know?

Alun Michael: If one does not take part in a discussion, one does not discover what one would learn by having the discussion. My hon. Friend asks me to jump ahead of a process that, I suggest, makes sense. I have proposed not endless consultation but a limited period of consultation and drafting—the serious work of enabling the process of bringing legislation before the House at the earliest possible date.

Lembit �pik: Will the Minister accept that the two principles of cruelty and utility offer a serious chance for discussion of the best alternative means of adhering to those principles? An unwillingness to engage by those who take an extreme view can be interpreted only as an unwillingness to listen to alternative ways to achieve those two principles. Does he agree that if the Middle Way Group, Countdown to the Ban and the Countryside Alliance wish to be involved in the process, the best thing that he can do is to ensure that they listen without prejudice to the reasons why they have reached different views? The best legislation will be achieved by listening generously, even to views that one does not hold at the beginning, in the hope that we will find something better than anything on the table at the moment, in the interests of animal welfare.

Alun Michael: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments and for his underlining the issue of animal welfare. I assure him that all three groups will be welcome to take part in the process of considering the practicalities, as will a variety of other organisations that have an interest, such as the farming organisations and others that are not part of the three groups. I underline the point that this will be an open process, not a closed one. An unwillingness to engage in discussion looks not like strength but like weakness.

John McFall: I commend the Minister for his patience in renegotiation, but may I remind him that in 1994, when the House passed my anti-fox hunting Billthe Wild Mammals (Protection) Billby a majority of 253 to zero, I engaged for six months with those in the other place but not one inch was given on foxhunting? Let us face the fact that this is no longer about foxhunting but is now a constitutional issue. [Interruption.] If the will of the House prevails, as expressed year after year in massive majorities[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman put his question.

John McFall: Will the House's will prevail, and within a year will foxhunting be totally and utterly banned?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend refers to his own history in these matters, and I remember the frustration that he experienced in being unable to enact a Bill that had been passed by this House. Above all, we do not want this issue to become a constitutional issue. If there is a will in the House of Lords and this place to avoid that, it can be avoided. However, I have made it clearand my remarks are intended to assist this House and the other place in terms of the confidence that they may have in the processthat were the other place to frustrate legislation, the Government would not stand in the way of the Parliament Act being used as the result of the reintroduction of a Bill. I hope that I have been clearnot because I wish to provoke confrontation with the House of Lords but because I wish to avoid it.

Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman take time to reflect on the fact that in a democracy majoritieseven elected majoritiescan be as tyrannical as individual dictators? When he frames the legislation, will he bear it in mind that his fellow citizens should be as free to go foxhunting as they are to go fishing and shootingas do many Labour Members? If he does not allow those principles, he will have to accept that his legislation will be perceived to be but a form of mob rule.

Alun Michael: I take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that majorities can be tyrannical in the light of personal experience during his political career. We certainly saw many tyrannical actions during the years of Conservative government that damaged people's lives and communities up and down the country. I welcome his conversion to generosity towards those who are not in the majority, but I would have thought that he would understand what I am doing today. He might have said that we were being tyrannical if we had reintroduced the previous Bill and pushed it through by allowing the application of the Parliament Act; instead, we have invited all concerned to enter into a process. We are showing the generosity of a majority that is confident rather than one that is being tyrannical.

Colin Pickthall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Conservatives' reactions to his statementwith the notable exception of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)are reassuring to many of us, because they make us think that he is closer to getting it right than we had feared? Does he agree that the crucial issue is the timing? Other hon. Friends have made the point, but can he state categorically that six months from today the consultation will have ended and the Bill will be drafted? Is he worried that any slippage in the timetable that lengthens the process will create more cynicism outside the House, especially among those who support what he is trying to do, and that the Government could end up pleasing no one?

Alun Michael: I certainly accept what my hon. Friend says about the need to stick to a timetable once it has been given as an indication of the period within which we intend to complete the job. I shall do everything I can to ensure that there will be no such damage to the reputation of Government, and no delay.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Points of Order

Robin Cook: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following today's business statement, I consulted further on the Second Reading of the Enterprise Bill. I remain convinced that two weeks from publication of the Bill to its debate is an adequate period for preparation, but I accept the force of the point made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) about the desirability of allowing time for the tabling of a reasoned amendment. I therefore wish to announce the following re-ordering of business for the week after the Easter recess.
	Tuesday 9 AprilSecond Reading of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 10 AprilSecond Reading of the Enterprise Bill.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for listening carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) said during business questions, and for coming back to the House so promptly with a change in the order of business, which will at least allow for the possibility of the tabling of a reasoned amendment, for example.
	I do not want to sound churlish, but I hope that the Leader of the House will reflect further, perhaps over the recess, on whether this is a proper way to conduct what is a very substantial Bill. I thank him for what he has done, but I ask him to give further, perhaps long-term, thought to whether a Bill of this magnitude should be conducted in this way. However, I am grateful for what he said just now.

Gregory Barker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are you aware that as a Back Bencher I am greatly troubled by the fact that my constituents, who stand to lose their jobs and livelihoods as a result of the potentially momentous legislation on hunting, which will have a devastating impact, have been denied a voice through their Member of Parliament? Despite sitting through the debate on Monday and through the statement and questions today, I have been unable to speak. I feel that my constituents have been denied a voice.

David Cameron: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: May I deal first with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker)? I must inform him that the statement ran for 50 minutes, we had a statement on Zimbabwe earlier, and I also have a duty to protect the business of the House.

David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Should it not also be borne in mind that some of those who are in favour of ending this barbaric practice once and for all were not called because of the number of people who were trying to catch your eye? The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) and some of his colleagues are disappointed, but I have argued for a ban for a long time and am no less disappointed.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a point of debate.

David Cameron: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I, too, raise this point of order as someone who sat for five hours during the debate and was not called, but the purpose of my point of order is to ask whether the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs asked, before the statement it made this afternoon, whether it could withdraw its White Paper entitled Working for the Essentials of Life, as it says that its key objective is to tackle social exclusion. As someone who represents a constituency with five hunts and many people employed in hunting, I cannot understand how throwing them out of work will aid social exclusion.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I repeat what I said earlier: that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Eric Forth: On a different point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that, in business questions, all those on the Government side who were seeking to catch Mr. Speaker's eye were called, but that Mr. Speaker then finished business questions while a number of colleagues on the Opposition Benches were still standing and seeking to catch his eye. May I ask you to have a very quiet and gentle word with Mr. Speaker and satisfy yourself that that will not be a precedent? If it were, obviously, the number of Labour Members standing would be a mechanism to curtail participation by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am sure that that was not the intention, but I ask you to draw Mr. Speaker's attention to that and express to him the hope that, whatever the reason was today, it will not be repeated.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Mr. Speaker is normally very generous, but he too has a responsibility to protect the business of the House, as the right hon. Gentleman will I am sure agree.

Education

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Heppell.]

Ivan Lewis: I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak about the proposals in the Green Paper entitled, 14-19: extending opportunities, raising standards, which the Government published on 12 February. Unfortunately, due to a prior long-standing engagement in my constituency, I will not be able to stay for the whole of the debate, and I offer the House my apologies for that. I will, of course, read the report of the debate with great interest.
	It is also appropriate to say at this stage that I am aware that the spokesperson leading for Her Majesty's official Opposition is the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), which strengthens the Bury connection. This is probably the only kind thing I will say about the Opposition during my speech; the hon. Gentleman is still spoken of very highly in the Bury, North constituency that he used to represent. I am sure that he will agree that the priority for us all at the moment is to save Bury football club from extinction.
	I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will use this opportunity to make constructive contributions. The Green Paper offers all those with a genuine commitment to education the opportunity to contribute their ideas, experience and to express their concerns. It poses as many questions as it prescribes solutions. Political knockabout and serious scrutiny have their place in the proceedings of the House but we are sincere in our desire to achieve maximum consensus as we seek to transfer an exciting vision into effective reforms which transform the life choices and life chances of all our young people.
	I am proud of the fact that last week we published probably the first ever young people's version of a Green Paper, demonstrating our commitment across government to consult young people on policy developments that impact on their lives. For too long we have treated young people as passive recipients of reform. As the Minister with responsibility for young people and learning, I am determined that their status as users and consumers of the education system should be recognised and acted upon.
	I want to put our 14 to 19 proposals in the context of our overall vision for high-quality education and training. As hon. Members will know, the past five years have seen dramatic improvements in education. Spending on education has risen from 4.7 per cent. to 5 per cent. of gross domestic productan increase of 13.6 billion. The exam results of those aged between 14 and 19 continue to improve, and Ofsted recently confirmed that the quality of teaching found to be good or better has never been higher.

Mark Hoban: Given the improvement in exam standards to which the Minister refers, can he explain why the gap between the best and worst performing schools has widened, not narrowed, as is outlined in the Ofsted report?

Ivan Lewis: Twenty years of under-investment and neglect of the most socially excluded communities and the most disadvantaged young people have probably led to that situation. This Government have introduced a number of specific measures to tackle that very problem. Literacy and numeracy strategies in primary schools are proving to work. A new key stage 3 strategy aims to tackle the fact that too many young people stagnate at that stage in their education or at worst go backwards. We have floor targets that are specifically focused on those schools and local education authorities that are not performing as well as they should; we are focusing resources and attention on those individual schools and LEAs. Therefore, it is not accurate or reasonable to suggest that the gap has grown in recent years. There is clear evidence that the Government's policies are designed to ensure that every individual young person, whatever their social background, whatever community they live in, gets the opportunity to achieve their potential.

Kelvin Hopkins: Of course, educational standards are improving under this Government, but does my hon. Friend not agree that the widening gap between schools is more a result of effective selection that is gradually taking hold following the policies of the previous Government, moving away from the comprehensive ideal?

Ivan Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friend that that has not helped the position. It created a two-tier system of education in this country. During those yearsand prior to themwe concentrated our efforts on educating a small elite. That was not sensible if we were trying to create either a socially inclusive or economically successful society.
	Although 14 to 19 education and training is improving, much more remains to be done. Too many young people still leave learning at 16 with few or no qualifications, and too many still drop out at 16, which often leads to negative consequencesunemployment, low-paid work or, even worse, a drift into a world of drugs, antisocial behaviour and crime.
	Similarly, only six out of 10 in the 15 to 24 age range attain level 3 qualifications in the UKcompared, for example, with nearly nine out of 10 in Germany. Only three out of four 16 to 18-year-olds in England were in education and training at the end of 2000well below European and OECD averages, so there is an urgent and clear case for reform.
	If we want to be a successful nation with an effective high-skills economy, there is no alternative: more people need to be better educated than ever before, and we must end the culture of leaving learning at 16. We believe that we have already made a good start.
	At primary school level we have focused on embedding the basic skills of numeracy and literacy. That has produced the largest and most sustained improvement ever seen in primary school results. We have also put in place measures to improve education between the ages of 11 and 14. Through the key stage 3 strategy, we aim to build on the successes achieved at primary school, to ensure continuous progression from primary school to the early years of secondary education and to improve the quality of teaching by investing in teachers' professional development.
	We have put other initiatives in place to address particular problems in the secondary education sector: for example, various strategies to close the gap between the highest and lowest performing schools. I have already referred to the expansion of the excellence in cities programme and to increasing the number of beacon and specialist schools. We are also supporting teachers and pupils in tackling bad behaviour, through formal behaviour management training, learning mentors, learning support units and the creation of the new Connexions service.
	We are committed to increasing and broadening participation in higher education so that by 2010, 50 per cent. of those aged between 18 and 30 will participate.
	The challenge at 14 to 19 is to build on that good work. We want to achieve several objectives: raising the participation of young people in post-16 education; supporting the retention of young people in that sector; improving their attainment; and encouraging their progression onwards into higher education and skilled jobs. At the same time, we want to address the fact that educational underperformance disproportionately affects those from lower socio-economic groups.
	We know of various current barriers to achieving those objectives. One is the fact that some young people are clearly turned off by the options currently open to them. Speaking to educationists and others around the country in consultation on the Green Paper, there is no doubt about that. Many teachers and head teachers welcome this debate because they know that the current system is not working for a core of young people within their schools. The system is undoubtedly turning them off learning.
	Many young people are, of course, happy to pursue a traditional academic GCSE/A-level route, but many others would benefit from a different mix of styles and types of learning. In recognition, we want to put in place new pathways of learning, so that from age 14 young people will be able to follow learning programmes more tailored to their individual aptitudes and aspirations. We want to build an educational learning experience around individuals' strengths, needs and aspirations rather than offer an inflexible range of opportunities that often leads to a cycle of failure, exclusion and social problems.
	We believe that our capacity to raise the status of vocational learning will be crucial. We have already introduced vocational A-levels and from this September we are introducing GCSEs in vocational subjects, so that any young person who wants to pursue a vocational career can have access to high-quality learning options that they will find demanding and rewarding.

Phil Willis: Will the Minister explain how introducing vocational A-levels, which by definition will not offer access to at least 50 per cent. of our youngsters, will improve access to the training and vocational enterprise that he claims the Green Paper is intended to promote?

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman argues that vocational A-levels are somehow outside the reach of many of our young people. He is right that we must ensure that all young people have a clear pathway to success. We believe that if vocational education is to succeed, it must be viewed as a high-status, high-esteem option. One of the historical problems with vocational education is that is has been perceived as a second-rate easy option.
	The introduction of vocational A-levels is at its early stages and we are willing to acknowledge that they may be inappropriate for some students. In the wider context, we are willing to engage in a genuine debate about how best to create educational qualifications and experiences that are as high status and stretching as academic options, but which are not the same and do not have the same assessment processes. It is our responsibility to get those reforms right, and further examination of vocational routes and qualifications will be part of finalising our response when the consultation is over. If vocational courses become the same as their academic alternatives, it will defeat the object.

David Drew: I welcome the Government's re-evaluation of the importance of vocational education. The Minister may know of some interesting developments in Stroud, where a consortium has been set up between three 11 to 18 schools and the local further education college. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to pay a visit in future. One problem that the project has encountered is the differential in pay between staff in schools and those working in the further education sector. Until those pay and conditions are sorted out, it will be difficult to realign the sectors. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

Ivan Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. If 14 to 19 reforms are to achieve their full potential, it is important to raise the status of further education in this country. We must demand higher standards, a clearer focus, a much closer partnership between schools and the FE sector; but we must also invest in that sector to ensure that it becomes the high-status option for young people that it deserves to be. The Government understand that success and investment in FE is central to our capacity to deliver our objectives.
	In providing individually tailored learning programmes, it is important to ensure that young people are stimulated and motivated to learn. If we do not achieve that, we will not achieve any of our objectives. Crucially, young people must acquire skills relevant for today's world. The local economic needs of communities, as well as today's competitive global economy, are important, and we must secure a better match between the worlds of education and of work.
	Providing a range of options is only one piece of the jigsaw. For students to benefit from increased choice, there must be more flexibility in the national curriculum between the ages of 14 and 16. We therefore propose to narrow the core of compulsory subjects to English, maths, science and information and communications technologythe subjects that we believe are vital for progression in learning.
	Young people should also study some other essential subjects that are key to personal development: religious, careers and sex education and physical exercise. Similarly, from this August, citizenship is to become a statutory part of the national curriculum. We are also proposing that all young people undertake some work-related learning.
	We remain committed to the principle that all young people should be entitled to a broad and balanced learning experience. With this in mind, we also propose a statutory entitlement to access a subject in modern foreign languages, design and technology and the arts and humanities. Young people would not be obliged to study those subjects, but schools would be obliged to make them available. That is consistent with the message that we hear repeatedly from head teachers and teachers who are trying to teach young people subjects in which they do not want to participate.
	The pace at which pupils move through the system is also important. Traditionally, all young people have done that at pretty much the same pace and have passed or failed whether they were ready or not. The system has not taken sufficient account of the different ways in which people learn. We propose that more young people should experience, where appropriate, accelerated or slower paced learning, so that they can take courses at the time that is right for them. It is unlikely that accelerated or slower paced learning will be taken up by the majority of students, but it will certainly be of benefit to the highest achievers and those who need more time to achieve.
	As I have said, we want to raise attainment for all young people, but we also want to help the high achievers to fly. Accelerated learning is one way of doing that; another way is by increasing the challenge at A-level. The Green Paper proposes introducing more demanding questions into the A2 papers that are taken at the end of an A-level course. In this way, they will give some students the opportunity to show their greater depth of knowledge, skill and understanding, without the need for a separate examination paper. We propose to introduce a higher A distinction grade to recognise this greater depth. Of course, we will continue to set the existing A to E grades at their present levels to ensure that A-level standards are maintained.
	The Green Paper contains other proposals for 16 to 19 learning within a more coherent 14 to 19 phase. For example, we are committed to raising the status of modern apprenticeships to meet today's skills needs. Modern apprenticeships provide high-quality work-based learning. They are a key rung in the vocational ladder, enabling young people to progress from GCSEs towards their chosen profession and, if they so choose, foundation degrees. The modern apprenticeship provides practical benefits in terms of gaining high-status employment and young people who opt for that high-status route also have the opportunity to go on to a degree course. It is not necessarily either a vocational or higher education route.
	We are upgrading modern apprenticeships by introducing technical certificates to deliver broader knowledge and understanding, alongside the national vocational qualification and key skills. We will also take forward the main recommendations of the modern apprenticeship advisory committee, chaired by Sir John Cassels.
	Honourable Members may have seen the national television advertising that began on 4 March, which is the first stage of a three-year marketing campaign to promote modern apprenticeships and boost participation. How many hon. Members are told by employers and parents that it is a pity that we no longer have the old apprenticeship system? We do have an apprenticeship systemit is called the modern apprenticeship system. It is important that we raise the profile and status of modern apprenticeships and make employers and young people far more aware of the opportunities that they present.
	We have begun work to establish a national framework for apprenticeship. By 2004, we aim to increase by 35,000 the number of young people entering modern apprenticeships before they are 22. Also in 2004, we aim to fulfil our manifesto commitment of an entitlement to a modern apprenticeship place for all 16 and 17-year-olds with the necessary qualifications.
	The Green Paper also proposes a new award to mark the completion of the 14 to 19 phase. An overarching award should be available to young people to recognise breadth and depth of achievement by the age of 19. It could be called the matriculation diploma, but if hon. Members have a better idea, I would be delighted to hear from them. We believe that the matriculation diploma would be a common outcome, achievable by any of the available 14 to 19 pathways. That is important in terms of parity of status. Young people will be able to gain the overarching certificate by going down an academic route, a mixed academic and vocational route or an exclusively vocational route.
	Such an award would have the benefits of, among other things, focusing young people on outcomes at 19 rather than at 16 and giving them something to aim for over the whole 14 to 19 phase. It would widen young people's horizons beyond individual formal qualifications, encourage the development of the whole person and would convey valuable information to employers and higher education.
	The Green Paper asks for views on whether there should be such an award and, if so, what its precise content and structure should be. It offers for discussion a model that would allow young people to achieve the diploma at three levelsintermediate, advanced and higher. It suggests that those who do not achieve the award at any level by age 19 but have remained in learning and made a sustained effort should be given a record of progress setting out their achievements. It also suggests that an alternative to that model could be a certificate that simply sets out attainment available to all young people on leaving learning at 19.
	For the first time in our education system, it is proposed that young people should be encouraged to participate in voluntary work, active citizenship activities, wider activities such as art, music and sport as well as work-related learning and to receive recognition for doing so. That responds to the concerns increasingly expressed by employers that young people progressing from the world of education to the world of work often lack communication, interpersonal, teamwork and leadership skills, all of which we regard as essential to successful businesses and high-quality public services in a modern world.
	Some other things have to be done to make the new structure and reforms work. Under the proposals, the age of 14 would become a more significant decision point than it is now. A flexible, more individualised, 14 to 19 programme of learning would involve wider choices, made earlier. It is therefore essential that young people receive the support, information and guidance to choose wisely. We have set out various proposals, including the effective use of the Connexions service, to ensure that that occurs.
	It will also be important to engage parents, in a way that we have not done previously, at this crucial time. We should remember that when we talk about giving young people a variety of options and greater flexibility, parents continue to be the most significant influence on the choices that they make.
	Our proposals also have significant implications for the institutional structures by which education is provided. To make a reality of the 14 to 19 phase, we must develop the kind of institutional structures that can deliver the full range of opportunities.
	We do not expect every school, college or workplace to deliver the whole variety of a 14 to 19 curriculum on its own. However, if an institution offers only part of a young person's programme of learning, access to complementary facilities should be available elsewhere. In other words, a range of institutions in every area should be able to contribute to a comprehensive and diverse pattern of local provision. This means that area-wide planning of provisionbringing together providers from various sectors and backgroundswill need to feature much more prominently in our ways of working. We need schools, colleges, training providers, small and medium- sized enterprises and universities to work far more closely together in the future.

Graham Brady: The Minister says that we need area planning to co-ordinate the whole of the 14 to 19 phase. Is he saying that learning and skills councils will in due course take over the funding and the planning of that phase?

Ivan Lewis: No.
	To succeed, in terms of the new relationships between institutions that focus on the individual learner, we believe that there will need to be a new commitment from all those involved. We also acknowledge our responsibility to encourage collaboration by removing barriers to co-operation, rewarding good practice and providing some financial assistance.
	We also intend to use pathfinders to assess different models of collaborative working and to develop best practice that will inform the full national development of the 14 to 19 phase. This innovative work is already taking place in institutions in a number of areas; because of their experience of the limited way in which they can allow all young people between 14 and 19 to achieve their potential, those institutions are collaborating and working together. We want to use pathfinders to focus attention on that good practice so that, in areas where it has not been the norm, we can bring institutions together and support closer working relationships.
	The reforms will give us a more coherent 14 to 19 phase of learning, providing balanced programmes of learning that meet the individual's needs, interests and aspirations, offering flexible progression from age 14 to post-16 learning. That will lead to an education system in which young people want to keep learning throughout the 14 to 19 phase and beyond, and which directly improves young people's employability.
	The solutions that we offer in the Green Paper are not set in stone. We are consulting widely on them, and for longer than usualuntil the end of May.

Robert Syms: Will the Minister undertake to publish the consultation when it ends in May? It would be useful to hear what trade unions and others have to say about the implications for teachers and lecturers.

Ivan Lewis: We will publish the results of the consultation. Hon. Members will not expect to receive a copy of every letter and submission, but a representative summary will be published. [Hon. Members: Oh!] It will be an accurate and representative summary. We are committed to consultation. The Green Paper could have been prescriptive on areas in which we have asked open-ended questions. In that respect, it is an important document. We want to hear from the widest possible variety of individuals, educationists and politicians on how we can raise the status of vocational educationsomething that no Government have ever achieved. There are no easy answers or quick-fix solutions. We want to listen to people who have practical experience of trying to make the system work day to day. I am sure that the Opposition will want to rescind their cynicism about our commitment to consultation.
	The solutions in the Green Paper are not set in stone. Reform must be introduced over a reasonable period. We accept that that will require significant change to the status quo. It is important to introduce change in a measured way over a number of years and to get those changes right.

Ian Gibson: Will my hon. Friend consult with young people who are in education and listen to them more carefully than any politician has ever done before?

Ivan Lewis: I entirely agree with the sentiment behind my hon. Friend's comment. Last week, for what I suspect was the first time ever, we launched a Green Paper specifically for the young people who will be most affected by the changes that we propose. Before the end of May, we shall hold several consultation events to ascertain the views of young people. We should also ask young people who have gone beyond the 14 to 19 phase what worked and what did not, and how the system could be better.
	We are committed to consultation and engagement with young people. That is not easyit could be done tokenistically or superficially, but we want to do it in a genuine way. We want to reach not only articulate young people who are already well served by the system, but those who are disengaged so that we can find out their reasons for their disaffection and to see how our reforms respond directly to their concerns.

Chris Mole: Will the Minister share with the House his experience in front of several hundred young people at the UGC cinema in Ipswich when the Suffolk Connexions service was launched? There was a lively direct engagement between the Minister and those young people.

Ivan Lewis: It was a memorable occasion. The first speaker was the young and impressive leader of the local authoritylittle did I know that he would soon join us in the House of Commons. He was pelted with aeroplanes by the young people in the audience. The next speaker was hissed and jeered. I was due to speak next, and I can assure the House that I made probably the shortest speech ever given from a public platform. The young people then asked me whether I would meet a juggler who was performing elsewhere in the exhibition centre. He in turn asked me to lie on the floor, and when I did, he swapped his juggling sticks for knives. The face of the civil servant accompanying me was well worth seeing.
	During the few months in which I have had the privilege of being the first Minister for young people, that and many other experiences have told me that they are amazingly sophisticated and articulate, able to tell us exactly where the system is working or failing. In the past, we have ignored them at our peril. We have treated young people as passive recipients of services rather than seeing them as users and consumers. The Government are absolutely committed to changing that, as am I.

Phil Willis: The Minister makes a powerful point. Does he accept that one of the things that young people find most disillusioning is being asked for their views, then having them totally disregarded? That may be why he was pelted in Ipswich. Does the Minister agree that the largest recent survey to be carried out with young people was the one on the future of faith schools? Young people gave expansion of faith schools a total thumbs-down, but the Government simply ignored them.

Ivan Lewis: No, I do not agree with that. When I asked the people who claimed to have undertaken extensive consultation how many young people had been consulted, the number turned out to be so small that the evaluation evidence was entirely meaningless. The hon. Gentleman should not make such a spurious point in support of an argument that he usually articulates in a way that I respect but do not agree with.
	When one speaks to audiences of young people, it is important not to make promises that cannot be kept. We must be honest about the resource limitations within which politicians must work, although that would make it difficult for the Liberal Democrats ever to engage in constructive discussion with young people.

Alistair Burt: Does the Minister agree that anyone who has experienced opinion polls run by the Liberal Democrats during by-elections would do well to be jaundiced about anything that arose from that method of gauging people's opinions?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that we are debating education for 14 to 19-year-olds?

Ivan Lewis: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted that the Bury consensus continues so far into the debate.
	The credibility of our engagement and consultation with young people is important. Frankly, they expect us to fail to deliver and to let them down. Politicians in generalwhatever their partyare not held in high regard by young people. Our work of engaging day after day in debate with young people is essential if we are to restore the integrity of democracy and do something about the low turnoutsparticularly among young peoplethat are the biggest threat to that democracy. All Members of Parliament have a special responsibility to do something about the breakdown of the relationship between the political process and young people. I urge every hon. Member to make an effort in his or her constituency to engage with that by consulting young people on the 14 to 19 Green Paper. We shall receive favourably the results of any such consultation.
	Our reforms are important and we must take time to get them right. It is absolutely essential that we ensure that more young people achieve their potential. We are committed to seeing them attain good qualifications and to giving them the education that they need if they are to be successful in today's high-skilled economy. The Government are committed to rebuilding our country on the dual foundations of social justice and economic success. We want a fair society in which every young person has the chance to fulfil his or her potential and in which we no longer tolerate having far too many young people being consigned to the margins of society. We are committed to a successful society, with the skilled work force who are so essential in an increasingly competitive global economy and in which we bridge the competitiveness gap, which continues to hold our country back.
	Our proposals for the reform of 14 to 19 education and training are an integral part of the society that we seek to build. I commend them to the House.

Alistair Burt: I welcome the opportunity to join in this debate to discuss the 14 to 19 curriculum and the Green Paper that the Under-Secretary outlined. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech and for his courtesy in informing the House that a constituency engagement will take him away from us. I can only hope and assume that that engagement is a fund raiser for the Shakers, in which case the whole House will join in wishing him well. Contributions may be sent to Bury football club, either through its website or directly to the club at Gigg lane, Bury. I urge all hon. Members who have not already added themselves to the roll of honour on the website to do so as soon as possible. It is a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman in his place. The Bury connection is very strong. I appreciate his kind words and wish him well in his ministerial career.
	I will have some nice things to say about the Green Paper and some of the aims and aspirations behind it. The Conservative party is concerned to ensure that our criticism of education policy comes from the same general base as the hon. Gentleman would expect, which is with an understanding of the aims of education in this country, but with the sharp edge that is necessary to turn decent aspirations into reality.
	As always, the devil is in the detail. Parties of all colours realise when in government that good aspirations can sometimes flounder. It is therefore the job of the Opposition to point to some of the matters in the Green Paper that need a little more consideration if they are not to spoil the aims and aspirations in the way that I shall outline.
	Before I consider the Green Paper in detail, I must deal with three vital areas that must be addressed if the curriculum is to be delivered satisfactorily. First, I pay tribute to the hard work that is going on in all our schools. From my county of Bedfordshire to Yorkshire, teachers, their support staff, governors, pupils and parents are working extremely hard to make education work. As the Secretary of State has said more than once, we are asking more of them every day. That is why some discrimination in the documents that the Government are continually sending them is necessary as those documents are getting in the way of the staff doing their jobs.
	As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), made clear in the debate on Tuesday, the paperwork that the Department produces for schools is reaching mammoth proportions, which is preventing heads from doing their jobs. If we add together all the documents sent out between April 2001 and February 2002, they total 4,333 pages for head teachers to plough through. In April 2001, documents with a total of 853 pages were issued to primary schools. Assuming that each page takes two minutes to read, those documents would have taken more than 28 hours just to read, which is equal to three and a half working days.
	No matter how diverting or interesting it is to knock up some new idea or develop policies such as the 14 to 19 curriculum, doing so must not deter the Government from tackling the problems that are undermining schools: the specialist teacher shortage, the burden of paperwork, and behavioural issues with pupils. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the work that is being done to improve behaviour and the like, but that comes on the back of the Government's failed exclusion policy, which they have now changed.
	I visited Orpington college yesterday and talked to a newly qualified teacher who had just started in his job. I asked him why he was in the college rather than the schools sector and he said that it was because of behaviourhe wanted to be in a place where children wanted to learn. That is a message for all hon. Members, not only for the Minister. All teachers want to be in places where children want to learn. Behaviour problems are causing a major crisis for schools. While we are concentrating on one policy, let us not take our eyes off the other ball.
	Secondly, I stress the crucial importance of the further education sector in making the post-16 curriculum work. The quality and purpose in further education is extraordinary. I have been delighted in the past few months to visit a variety of different colleges: Barnet, Bedford, Dunstable, Thurrock and Orpington. I was most impressed by the commitment and the close connection between staff and their students, which might be due to the intimate connection with the local community and the need to be closely involved with employers. I found genuine esteem for the students and the courses that they are doing. I will return later to the difficult issue of vocational education. People in those colleges have real concerns, however, and unless they are tackled, the hopes of delivering some of the 14 to 19 curriculum through further education will be damaged.
	The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who has just left the Chamber, made a point about pay and recruitment, and he is right. It is my impression from talking to principals that the FE sector is worried about core funding, which continues to go down because the new money coming into FE is always tied to initiatives. Colleges must bid for all the money and there is a sense that new money is centrally directed, which has led to a lack of trust in the sector.

David Wright: Given the aspirations of the Leader of the Opposition to reduce public expenditure to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product and the funding issue that the hon. Gentleman is raising, where would the cuts fall in further education if the Conservative party were in power?

Alistair Burt: I will knock that argument on the head before it consumes every debate. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said clearly that the public services will be the first call on the Exchequer when we return to office. We have made that clear in all our actions in the past few months. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will care to get to his feet on the day of the Budget when the Chancellor may have some rather different things to say about the public services than he has hitherto said.

Ivan Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman help the House by explaining the proportion of Government expenditure that is not spent on public services?

Alistair Burt: About 60 per cent. is not spent on public services. We commonly talk of education and the health service as such services. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is including social security. I was drawing that distinction, but perhaps he was not.
	People in further education are concerned that they are not quite trusted to handle their budgets. The core funding issue and the efficiency drive are causing them real problems. Academic pay and recruitment have reached acute levels. Those teaching in FE do not have some of the advantages of teachers in schools, such as housing allowances, golden hellos and laptops. Consequently, there is now a drift from further education into schools, which is affecting the ability of the FE sector to deliver.
	Despite that fact, performance in the FE sector is exceptionally strong. Accordingly, the way in which the Minister for Lifelong Learning is treating the sector is unwarranted and it is causing completely unnecessary anger and concern. All Ministers sometimes have difficult things to say to those in their Department or in the area of their expertise and work. However, one must get people on one's side at some stage, particularly if one wants to give any sense that one understands the problems that they are facing. When the Minister wrote in The Independent on 7 March,
	Students have a 50-50 chance of coming away from post-16 learning having achieved what they set out to do . . . Further education serves too many learners to be a lottery for success,
	she must have been unaware of the degree of anger that she has caused in the sector.
	As the Association of Colleges pointed out, FE colleges receive 20 per cent. less funding for every individual who goes through an A-level programme than schools get for their A-level students.
	According to the Further Education Funding Council inspection report of 200001:
	The amount of good or outstanding provision in programme areas increased significantly between 19992000 and 20002001. Overall, in 20002001, 97 per cent. of lessons were judged to be satisfactory or better. The proportion judged good or outstanding was 62 per cent.
	How does that square in any way with the hon. Lady's unwarranted attack?

Gillian Merron: I was interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman referred to his visits to various colleges and in his subsequent comments. Is not the Green Paper all about how we work with that sector to extend opportunities to young people and improve them? In his travels around the sector, did he not find an overwhelming welcome for the Green Paper?

Alistair Burt: I am awfully sorry, but no. The hon. Lady is absolutely right in her first contention: the whole point of working together is to build up a partnership. However, I put it to hershe should put this to her hon. Friendsthat the Minister for Lifelong Learning's idea of creating a partnership may be to go around saying the sort of stuff that she has been saying, but it is just not working. Today, she will find that the chief executive of the Association of Colleges has made that clear in a very strong speech. The point is to build a partnership, but to improve it the Minister has to get people on the Government's side in the first place, and she is patently not doing that.
	It is too early to get a sense of how much all the colleges welcome the Green Paper. They do welcome some things, as I shall go on to say, but they have not given an unequivocal welcomethat would never happen. At the moment, for them to be willing to listen to the Government, they must have some sense that the Government care about them and their sector, and the remarks made by the Minister for Lifelong Learning are not helping in that regard.
	Yesterday I met John Harwood, the chief executive of the Learning and Skills Council. We wish the council well in its role, into which it is now settling. It has a variety of issues to resolve, from teething troubles to the fact the performance will be patchy from area to area. We would want it to stand up for the further education sector.
	I shall take the Minister back to a remark that he made following an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) in relation to the 14 to 19 curriculum and its funding. The Minister said that there were no plans for the LSC to take over funding for 14 to 19-year-olds. I assume that that is absolutely firm. Is he prepared to reiterate that that will not happen? If not, perhaps the Minister for School Standards would like to revisit that point in responding to the debate.
	My third point on the other things that need to be considered before the curriculum can be adequately delivered relates to the concerns about the budget. The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) may have some more concerns about public expenditure when we get to Budget day. Where has education slipped to in the pecking order? We have had two hints. The first is the continued delay in the review of student finance. Again, some of the remarks made by the Minister for Lifelong Learning have been designed to suggest that there will not be very much new money for students or universities.
	While we are about it, can we finally have a definition of higher education? Again, the Under-Secretary said that the target was that 50 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds should have had some form of higher education experience by 2010. Is he aware that, since 25 October last year, we have been asking his colleagues to define the term higher education experience? Six months later, we still do not have one. People cannot have a target unless they know what it relates to.

Phil Willis: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by saying that the answer to that question, which I have also asked, was published in Hansard today.

Alistair Burt: Ah, well. I think that that was helpfulthanks. Was the answer the result of an opinion poll taken by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues? We can rely on it, can we?

Phil Willis: May I help the hon. Gentleman? The response is not helpful, but it is interesting.

Alistair Burt: The confusion among those on the Opposition Benches is an indication of the confusion caused by the Government in not providing an adequate answer to that question for six months. There are 190 specialists in the Department for Education and Skills dedicated to higher education. Since 25 October last year, we have not yet had a definitive answer. Even the answer published today has confused the hon. Gentleman.

Phil Willis: I do not understand it.

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman does not understand it, and he understands education very well. So, it is back to the drawing board for all 190 of those educational specialists, and perhaps in six months' time we will have an answer.
	The other sign that education is slipping down the agenda is perhaps the attack on further education, lowering expectations in that sector. If education, education, education has slipped down the list of the Chancellor's priorities, it will be enormously disappointing to people in that sector, and perhaps we should be prepared for bad times just around the corner.

Ivan Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alistair Burt: Of course; a comment on the Budget would be welcome.

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman would welcome such a comment, but the Treasury certainly would not welcome it if I were to make it. Is he aware of the recent statement made by the former chief inspector of schools to the effect that the problem with the previous Conservative Government's education policies was that they did not give them early enough the importance that they deserved? Does not that contrast sharply with the massive amounts of extra investment that this Government have already put into education and skills during our first five years in office?

Alistair Burt: I am thrilled that the hon. Gentleman has read Chris Woodhead's book and is now prepared to quote it extensively. If he has been converted to what the former chief executive of Ofsted says, we would be delighted. Perhaps he will also comment on the remarks made by Chris Woodhead on page 85 of his book:
	These are problems that could be solved. In fact, as everyone knows the Government has chosen to make them worse.
	The hon. Gentleman may want to quote selectively from Chris Woodhead's book, but we have probably got rather more in our armoury than he has.
	I should like to consider the Green Paper in detail, having put on record the things that need to be done to ensure that the curriculum is properly delivered. None of us would seek to quibble with the vision and aims expressed in the Green Paper. It states that the
	first challenge is to build an education system in which every young person and every parent has confidence.
	That is perfectly proper. It also states:
	Secondly, we must ensure that no young person is denied the chance of a decent education.
	Thirdly, we must reap the skills benefits of an education system that matches the needs of the knowledge economy.
	And fourthly, we must promote education with character.
	That is absolutely right. There is no reason why any hon. Member should take issue with that, but the difficulty is how to translate things into practical answers.
	I welcome the attention that is being paid to flexibility. I also certainly welcome the effort being made to ensure that proper support, advice and guidance is given to young people, especially at the age of 14. When youngsters become that bit older and enter higher education, a key factor for those who do not complete their courses is that they have not had adequate information or preparation before they start them. So anything that can be done to help at an early stage is good, especially for those from non-traditional higher education backgrounds whom we all seek to encourage most.
	The three main proposals in the Green Paper are, first, a more flexible curriculum that is more responsive to students' individual needs; secondly, to promote world-class technical and vocational education, which offers a positive choice and high standards and is not a second-class fallback; and, thirdly, the new matriculation diploma, to which all young people can aspire at the age of 19. All those are useful aspirations, but, alas, too many questions go begging.
	The GCSE will be downgraded for academic pupils, but upgraded for less academic ones. Is it therefore a useful exam, or not? Languages will be upgraded in primary schools, but downgraded in secondary schools. Are foreign languages essential, or not? The curriculum is supposed to be more flexible to enable every child to achieve, but more exams are loaded on to 18-year-olds. Therefore, what should have been a set of radical proposals to reform vocational education and ensure that the brightest pupils are stretched, alas turns out to be too much of a hotch-potch of half-baked ideas.
	First, let us consider the flexible curriculum. The Green Paper states that young people should be able to develop at a pace consistent with their abilities. In particular, it advocates greater flexibility to accelerate learning in key stage 3 and give able students the opportunity to take their GCSEs early or to drop them altogether in some subjects and begin the AS programmes early. The problem is that most of the flexibility comes from taking away the need to carry on with a language post-14. Languages will therefore not be compulsory.
	The problem with that is that we already lag way behind our European competitors on language skills. Barely 25 per cent. of people in this country can speak a foreign language. I suspect that that is a self-assessment that we would all make with our pidgin 0-level French, and it shows that the depth of difficulties in relation to foreign languages is rather greater. Most of our European competitors have compulsory language teaching until the age of 18. Why should we not?

Charlotte Atkins: If the hon. Gentleman had ever tried to teach an unwilling 14 or 15-year-old a language when they were struggling with a range of other subjects, he would understand that it is vital not to force languages on them, but to ensure that they are enthused and excited by languages in primary school at seven or, indeed, earlier.

Alistair Burt: Two points come to mind. Does the hon. Lady apply that criterion to those who are unwilling to do maths, English or the like? Secondly, if youngsters are to be encouraged in primary school to feel that languages are appropriate, but suddenly find aged 14 that the Government do not consider them to be appropriate, where are the Government setting their sights?
	Plenty of others have commented with great concern about languages being dropped. On 15 February, the Nuffield languages inquiry said:
	The Government has sent out the message loud and clear to young peopleand to those who run their schools and teach in themthat language learning is a frill, an optional extra to education.
	It believes that the plan
	would have a seriously damaging effect on national competitiveness and on the overall education levels of our children.
	The Association of Colleges, in its submission on the curriculum, said:
	The removing of modern languages from the core is a retrograde step in relation to the future employability of young people in the global economy of the 21st century. Industry is already reporting losing business because there are insufficient employees able to communicate with foreign buyers. It is arguable whether introducing modern languages into Primary School will engender the motivation to pursue languages beyond the age of 14.
	That does not even consider where the teachers are to come from. Accordingly, this may well not close a skills gap, but create a new one.
	To rub salt into this particular wound, there are far too many life skills that are no longer compulsory components of the curriculum. Employers do not complain that their candidates do not have a clear enough vision of their future career path or that their health education is poor; they complain that the candidates do not have good enough key skills and basic general knowledge. This element of the Green Paper, therefore, would see valuable skills dropped for non-key skills that should be learned elsewhere in the family and the community.
	The Under-Secretary said that there would be an entitlement for students to take a foreign language if they wished and that schools would be obliged to provide the teaching. What happens if one pupil in the whole school wants to take French?

Ivan Lewis: indicated dissent

Alistair Burt: Is the Under-Secretary suggesting that a school would not be obliged to teach that pupil but that somewhere in the local area someone would be found to do it? Is it the latter?

Ivan Lewis: It is quite straightforward. The concept of collaboration between schools, colleges and training providers within an area would mean that the school had responsibility to ensure that that young person would have access to the teaching of a modern foreign language, whether in that institution or a neighbouring one.

Alistair Burt: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but again my response is that if collaboration is to be the order of the day and he is looking for collaboration with the further education sector, he had better make sure that things are levelled up in that sector. Otherwise, he will not find the collaboration that he is looking for.
	The proposals for dropping GCSEs are vague. It is not clear which topics students could drop and which they could take early. It is clear that the proposals will downgrade the GCSE. If the brightest pupils are no longer taking the same exams as their less bright contemporaries, the latter will not feel that their qualifications are as valuable as when all students took GCSEs as their main key stage 4 examination. It removes the gold standard status from the GCSE and is an admission that GCSEs are now too easy. If that is the case, let us reform the GCSE.
	Consequently these proposals are likely to create a form of exam apartheid, especially as in practice it is likely to be difficult to move between the two streams. The decision, therefore, to take all GCSEs or some GCSEs and AS-levels at the age of 14 will have a huge effect on future life chances. This may encourage some pupils to take AS-levels when it is inappropriate to do so and may encourage some schools to push their pupils to do AS-levels so that they move higher up the league table.
	There is also a question mark over the overall appropriateness of the AS-level for GCSE students. Contrary to common belief, AS-levels are not a lower standard than A-levels; they are intended to be half an A-level course at A-level standard. Therefore, it is important to ask whether even a very bright 14-year-old would be able to take a course and an exam designed to be taken by a 17-year-old. It seems that the AS-level is being used by the Government to plug a gap in their policy, but it is not an appropriate plug.
	I now come to modern apprenticeships and vocational training. The debate on vocational training is an important one for the country now, as it has been for almost 100 years. We perpetually seem to get this wrong in terms of attitude and the like. When we visit those involved in teaching a vocational subject, we do not get any sense from them that their pupils have less self-esteem or that there is less esteem attached to the course. This is something that we struggle with. I sometimes feel that those with an academic background fall over themselves to create or perpetuate the gap for some reason. The way they go on talking about the divide and the problems of esteem in vocational education sometimes adds to the difficulties.
	There is no difference in the worth of an individual, no matter what course they take. The demand that is made of us is to do the very best with all our talents to the best of our ability. Those talents may best be fulfilled in academic or vocational courses, and now increasingly in hybrids between the twothat is what it is all about. We will do all we can to assist the Under-Secretary in this. I remember coming to the House many years ago and talking to employers who said that they were sick of the fact that they could not get enough young people with basic skills and craft skills. They felt then that there was a problem in Britain in relation to that issue. It has been clouded by class and terminology for far too long. We will give every assistance we can to help deal with that, but whether these proposals are necessarily the right ones is another matter. On the general issue, we want to be very supportive.
	I am pleased that the Under-Secretary paid tribute to the scheme for modern apprenticeships which we introduced. Although the Green Paper does not give a great deal of detail on this, the idea is that pupils who intend to pursue a modern apprenticeship will be able to study predominantly vocational courses until they are 16. The Green Paper says that the Department for Education and Skills will be working with the Learning and Skills Council to ensure that modern apprenticeships are of a high enough standard and will provide students with employable skills.
	There is already in the proposals a compulsory work-related learning component, and the Green Paper reaffirms its existence for all pupils in the future. I draw the Under-Secretary's attention to the Association of Learning Providers, which wrote to me shortly after the Green Paper was published, and wished to participate. It says that the key to making sure that modern apprenticeships and relationships with the workplace go well is to give sufficient choice to employers and learners to make sure that the schemes are the right ones. It goes on:
	The new national framework should be sufficiently flexible to allow employers and learners choice. It should also permit innovation on the part of private and voluntary learning providers in devising programmes that meet the needs of different industry sectors and approaches to learning.
	I will send the letter to the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will find it helpful.
	The problems are as follows. There is a danger that businesses will not be adequately consulted either on the content of the vocational qualifications or during the creation of modern apprenticeships. The Under-Secretary must make sure that this does not happen. It is not clear how the Learning and Skills Council will interact with the vocational training that is available for the under-16s. That is a real problem if under-16s go to further education colleges in order to take some of their vocational GCSE courses.
	The general idea on work-related learning is fine, but there is no structural or compulsory element to the proposals. The Under-Secretary has said that this would happen and would be a must. That must be firmed up in the Paper because unless there is structural change, it is unlikely that this will work.
	I share with the Under-Secretary a sense that perhaps the matriculation diploma will not necessarily go into the Oxford English Dictionary with as much ease as a Delia did. It will not trip off all our tongues, so we should find some other name, perhaps one relating to graduation. The whole concept of graduating from high school has become popular with youngsters who see it portrayed in films from the United States where it is part of the culture. Perhaps some sort of graduation diploma, providing that it is not confused with anything further up the education scale, might be right. Let us have a think about it.
	There is a problem, however. The proposals for the diploma are vague. For example, they do not state whether other activities, such as citizenship education and sport, will definitely be included in the assessment. The diploma will over-simplify the current examinations system. The suggestion is that employers, further education colleges and universities cannot tell the difference between pupils' achievements. For example, students with five A* grades at GCSE will get the same intermediate grade as those with five C grades, yet employers and further education colleges will not view them in the same way. John Bangs, the head of the National Union of Teachers education department, summed it up best when he said:
	It is difficult to see why a separate certificate is needed for those with higher grades. It is not beyond the wit of the universities to develop their own means of distinguishing between highfliers without undermining A levels for other pupils.
	The diploma also attempts falsely to compare different skills, such as an achievement in English with an aptitude for woodwork with being a good football player. Including other non-academic/vocational subjects in the assessment creates problems. How will we assess non-academic and vocational achievements? How will we deal with the fact that a student who has one A and two B grades at A-level, an AS-level at any grade and a qualification in citizenship will be awarded the top higher diploma, while a student with just four A grades at A-level will get only the lower advanced diploma? That does not make sense.
	The Green Paper sets out many good intentions. However, the main aspects on which the Minister will concentrate to deliver the aims are seriously flawed. Unless those are dealt with, the aims will not be achieved. We draw the Government's attention to those difficulties. There is much devil in the detail, but we, too, want the central aims delivered. The fundamentals are in place. However, unless the difficulties in teaching and schools, the disparity in further education and the budgetary problems are properly dealt with by the Secretary of State and her team, none of those aspirations will be delivered. We give full notice that as much as we support some of the principles behind the aims, we will also examine the flaws carefully in order to ensure that the delivery matches some of the words that the Government use, at least at some stage in their term in office.

Ann Taylor: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). I know him best from his days as MP for Bury, North and, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, that is how we still think of him. On that basis, I am sure that we all join him in wishing Bury football club well in its current difficulties. I am not sure whether it does either of us any good when I say that the last football match I saw him at was a Bolton Wanderers game. The match was good, so it was obviously not last week.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the Conservatives want the central aims of the Green Paper delivered. However, I doubted that when I listened to him. It will always be the case that the devil is in the detail, but we are debating a Green Paper, not the details of legislation. It is important to concentrate on the general direction in which we want education to go for this age group. I welcome the debate and the fact that we are concentrating more attention on 14 to 19-year-olds.
	As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the Government have delivered a great deal in terms of educational improvement in the past few years. Much of that is reflected in the improved performances in many schools. The schools achievement awards are out tomorrow, and I look forward to writing to the successful schools in my constituency. There have been many successful initiatives, and many of them are interrelated. We should not forget that.
	At the beginning of the week, I read some comments by right-wing so-called researchers who said that we should dump pre-school education because it does not do children any good. The Government's work on pre-school education has laid the foundation for the teenagers of the future so that they get far more out of education and achieve even more than they do now. It is important to realise that those facts are related so that we have an overall approach to education.
	It is right to focus on this group of teenagers, partly because the Government have done much to move in the right direction in so many other aspects of education, and partly because there are difficulties with the education of those young people. In addition to issues covered by the Green Paper, the Minister should bear it in mind that those parts of the country with a middle-school system still experience some difficulties. In that system, young people of 14 take key stage 3 exams when they have only been in the school for a short time. That problem has not been mentioned so far, and it complicates an already complicated situation. It will have to be taken on board when further details of our approach for the age group are worked out.
	The Green Paper says:
	We must build a flexible system around the needs and aspirations of individual pupils.
	No one could disagree with that. However, it is important that that aspiration on the part of the Government is put in the right context. We need a flexible system, but we do not want a fragmented system. We have to get away from the categorisation that has given sound opportunities to some in the age group, but not to others. There have been so many tiers and layers that it has often been difficult for those advising young people, as well as the young people themselves, to know which route to take. Should they go for intermediate GNVQs, GCSEs, AS-levels or modern apprenticeships? Should they go to a sixth form college, an FE college or stay in their own college? The choices are almost bewildering. In some geographical areas, that makes it difficult for everyone involved.
	We are lacking the framework to encompass all that we offer. Although I absolutely believe that we need flexibility, it needs to be within a coherent structure. It must offer all young peoplenot just the academic few or those who are deemed suitable for vocational educationmore choice than they have at present. However, it must also give value to those opportunities that are not properly valued now.
	The Green Paper refers to meeting the needs of young people, but who decides what those needs are? How do we inform young people and ensure that they get advice and support? The situation on the ground is patchy. In some areas, it is very good; in others, it is not. The same is true of aspirations. We have to improve young people's aspirations and stretch all pupils, but are we sure that we have the right mechanisms in place?
	I do not want to go through the whole Green Paper, but not enough has been made of one critical consideration. The document refers to girls' achievements and records. It also mentions motivation. However, the lack of motivation on the part of young people is one of the key problems in education. We need to place an even greater emphasis on that and probably carry out more research. More people need to be interested in motivation, especially what makes it tail off.
	There is academic work on that. A few years ago, the department of education at Keele university charted the dips in performance, in interest and in attendancethe critical points in the education of girls and boys. The dips were not parallel, but the elementary work of examining what is happening and then considering why, can help to improve our knowledge of how to motivate young people and how to keep them interested in education. There are some very good teachers around, many of whom are good individual motivators, but we still have to do more to understand what triggers motivation and what keeps people in the system and interested. Flexibility in the system will help, but there are other steps that we must take.
	I want to discuss another matter that the Green Paper touched on, but not sufficientlyensuring that young people, especially this age group, learn how to learn. They need to become individual learners, as opposed to being taught a skill or how to pass an exam, which, although critically important, is not the be all and end all for this age group. All young people need to develop that skill because they will have to change direction throughout their lives, and if they can crack learning as a process at that age it will stay with them for ever.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, wondered what young people might think about the Green Paper. I commend the Minister for producing a separate document, including a questionnaire, that is aimed at young people. It is a simple guide, but none the worse for that. There is always the danger that such documents may sound patronising, and we can always find examples of the odd phrase that is not quite right. As the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire said, young people will not be queueing up to discuss the matriculation diplomaalthough some might come up with other names that would be unmentionable in the Housebut they may have ideas about it.
	It is worth the Minister giving some time, thought and effort to ensuring that young people respond to the guide. He should particularly target this year's A-level takers, because they are the cohort that first had to do key stage 1 exams and tests, key stage 2, AS-level, and so on. Those young people have had experience of just about every change that has been introduced in education, so it is important to seek their views. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows one 18-year-old from whom he can expect to hear about the matter.
	I want to say a word about AS-levels, partly as the parent of someone who took them. There was much criticism of AS-levels, including talk about overload. In fact, if young people are interested in the subjects that they are taking, they do not necessarily regard the work as overload. It is important to motivate young people and to ensure that courses are tailored to those who take them. We should aim for the broader-based education that many people have talked about for a long time, but has not often been delivered.
	The Green Paper makes proposals on GCSEs and the curriculum for 14 to 16-year-olds. It suggests that the curriculum should include core subjectsEnglish, maths, science and information and communications technologyand, within those, citizenship, religious education, sex and health education, physical education and work-related learning. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire questioned whether the proposals were right and were what employers wanted. It would be hard to think of dropping subjects such as physical education or work-related learning from the list, because they are key ingredients in the education that all young people need.
	I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's concern about foreign languages being no longer compulsory post-14, howeveralthough that may be wishful thinking on my part. I can easily imagine the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins)the difficulty of teaching youngsters who are not wholly motivated towards education. If such youngsters have to study yet another subject that they find tedious, boring and not especially relevant, that could turn some of them off education.
	Perhaps the answer is that there should be a presumption that people will study foreign languages without making it compulsory although that, too, could give rise to difficulties. If we introduced foreign languages at an earlier stage, young people might be less inclined to be turned off in the way that has been suggested.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems of learning foreign languages is that so many young people have not mastered our own language very well? Improving young people's literacy in our own language would be of tremendous assistance when they learn a foreign language.

Ann Taylor: I am sure that is the case. I am also sure that the money that we are investing in pre-school educationhelping young children to articulate their feelings, getting them interested in more than watching television by encouraging them to play with other children and become aware of books through reading or having stories read to themwill better prepare children for primary education. The literacy hour is already having an impact. The benefits are cumulative and will give us the scopeif we can find the teachersto teach foreign languages at an earlier stage.
	My main concern about the suggested subjects relates to a point made on page 5 of the guide where young people are advised that they would be able to follow
	other courses including some linked directly to the skills and knowledge needed for specific jobs or careers.
	That is fine, but we need to consider the status of the other courses or we shall be in danger of creating yet another divide of the type that has dogged British education for far too long.
	I have two questions for my ministerial colleagues on vocational GCSEs, which we have already discussed. The guide includes quite a lot of material about them and is encouraging as to their introduction and success. It lists a range of vocational subjects that will be available from September 2002: applied art and design, applied business, engineering, health and social care and so on. Some other relevant subjects could and should have been included. I do not understand why subjects such as plumbing, electrical work or car maintenance were excluded. Many of the young people whom we are trying to target already have an interest in those subjects, so studying them would be extremely relevant and might actually switch those young people back on to education and motivate them in future.
	Ministers may reply that individual schools cannot cover all those subjects. However, schools cover all the conventional subjects so perhaps they should consider including other subjects. If they cannot, we could and shouldand will soon have toencourage greater co-operation between groups of local secondary schools. That is something of a hobby horse of mine. Co-operation could be undertaken through a consortium or a looser co-operative. There is great scope for that, especially given the specialist schools status that many schools are achieving. Such a partnership approach could offer a wider range of subjects. That is one way of making sure that specialist schools do not have a divisive impact on their locality. If they are knitted into working with other schools in the area, they can offer more collectively than they could individually.

Charlotte Atkins: My right hon. Friend spoke about co-operation between schools. Does she think that such co-operation should extend to further education and sixth form colleges?

Ann Taylor: Absolutely. I make no distinction there. Fourteen-year-olds who want to study certain courses, such as car maintenance, need to be able to go wherever those courses are on offer. Networking and collaboration is bound to strengthen the totality of the education provision in any one area.
	My second question for the Minister about vocational GCSEs is very simple. Why are we so intent on giving them a different label? Why are we so intent on calling them vocational GCSEs? Why cannot we simply call them GCSEs? That point may seem very trivial.

Ivan Lewis: I reassure my right hon. Friend that what were known as vocational GCSEs have become GCSEs in vocational subjects. Ministers have insisted that we will be introducing new GCSEs from September. They will not be labelled vocational, as we regard that as unnecessary.

Ann Taylor: I hope that that is the case. We should not say that we are offering GCSEs in vocational subjects because we do not say that we are offering GCSEs in academic subjects. We should just say that we are offering GCSEs in various subjects which are all of equal worth. It is critical that they are all of equal worth.
	Will the Minister consider reinforcing the point about equal worth by introducing a credit accumulation system, so that the matriculation diploma to which he referred can be given, at its different levels, for whatever combination of points, subjects and experiences is deemed necessary? If we ensured that every subject at GCSEwhether it was history, health and social care, geography or car maintenancewas worth the same number of points in a credit accumulation system that formed part of matriculation, we would reinforce parity of esteem, which has so often been lacking in the past. That is important if we are to motivate young people.
	In the FE sector, and in education more generally, there are problems concerning who will teach all the extra subjects. The Minister and the hon. Member for NorthEast Bedfordshire touched on that problem when they mentioned pay and conditions in the FE sector. A more important problem is the fact that when the FE sector was incorporated and it underwent the changes introduced by the previous Conservative Government, many valuable courses were dropped because they were expensive to run. Many colleges dropped the same courses, so we lost the talents of certain categories of lecturers and teachers. We may have to make an effort to bring some of them back and to ensure that they can make a contribution. If we are to have new courses, it is important that the curriculum and the quality of teaching are right from the start. If we do not get that right, the new GCSEs will be off to a poor start, and it may be difficult to recover from that.
	I support the concept of a matriculation diploma, although I suggest that we offer a prize for whoever comes up with the best name for it because none of us wants to call it that. I am not sure, however, whether a matriculation diploma is the entire answer. The document says that Ministers are considering an alternative to it, presumably for the youngsters who do not reach the threshold. At the moment, many people would be excluded from having a matriculation diploma because they do not get five A to C grades. We can expect more youngsters to hit that target in future, but some will not. The existing record of achievement could be developed so that we do not need to invent yet another diploma.
	I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind that, at the moment, some of the youngsters who do not meet the threshold of five A to C grades never get the opportunity to catch up: once they are a failure, they are always a failure. Some are able to pick up another grade when they go on to other types of education, but some are not. If we are to have partnership arrangements, I hope that the Minister will consider making provision for those youngsters who might repeat year 11 successfully with a tailored course.
	In a town such as Dewsbury, young people could, without suffering any stigma, take their GCSEs in the same school, a neighbouring institution or an FE college, where they would be supported and brought up to the threshold. There is scope for action there. The document concentrates on fast tracking, but we must consider those who need a bit of help, not least because of the variation in the maturity of people at that age.
	On fast tracking to stretch the brightest pupils, I do not think that this is the major problem for this age group, although it is bad if children get bored at school at any level. I have no objections to giving an A* grade for a mark of 90 or higher at A-level, when an A is given for 80 or above, but I do not think that it is a big deal. I ask the Minister whether it is right to put even more pressure on young people. I am not sure why fast tracking is being proposed. I have read that it is because universities want more help in sorting out the highest of the high-fliers. I think that universities should be happy with people who achieve A grades, rather than trying to tweak every point out of them. University interviews and attitudes towards students also come into it. However, I could talk about that at length, so I had better not start.
	I know that some schools encourage youngsters not to take GCSEs. I am not sure that that is always a good idea. It is good that youngsters know what level they have reached, and very often they do not want to be excluded from what their peer group is doing. There are other ways of ensuring that we stretch them without the risk of isolating them from the majority of their year group.

Graham Brady: The right hon. Lady is making a very good speech and I am listening with great interest. Is she concerned, as I am, that if we take the brightest, most able children out of GCSEs, we may not achieve the parity of esteem for the vocational subjects that we would all like to see?

Ann Taylor: Yes, that is part of the problem, but not the primary part. Whether or not a child takes a GCSE early very much depends on the maturity of the child and the subject. It is much easier for 14-year-olds to take GCSE maths than it is for them to take GCSE English. They can accelerate more easily in a narrow subject such as maths; they need a degree of maturity to do themselves justice in an English course.
	The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about getting brighter children to do GCSEs. I was not going to make this point, but most of the schools that miss out GCSEs are private schools. Their pupils have the confidence to see them through, but most young people want to work with their peer group. Some want to be stretched, and some will not be able to stand the pace, so flexibility is required. Time pressures might not be so severe under a system of credit accumulation in which credits are picked up as a student goes along, and credits achieved early are just as valuable as those achieved late.
	I have been speaking for a long time, but I want to make a couple more points, the first of which relates to support networks. It is important that every institution, be it school, sixth form or further education college, has in place the right network to support and advise young people. The Green Paper mentions the presence of the careers service and Connexions in schools and colleges, but although that is important, it is not enough. The document appears to expect too much from the Connexions service; perhaps more attention should be given to helping schools and colleges to advise and mentor young people and help them to make decisions about their future.
	Finally, let me say a few words about the institutions in which young people are taught and how we measure their success. The way in which exams are used to measure success should be revisited. Many youngsters from my constituency go to a sixth form college in Huddersfield, Greenhead college, which I know well. Its former head, Dr. Kevin Conway, and his colleagues devised a system of assessment of the college and of individual courses that I believe points the way forward for the assessment of educational institutions. Many sixth form colleges evidently agree, because most now use the system of value-added assessment for internal purposes and when considering how to improve what they offer young people.
	The system does not merely take into account raw scores, but considers the ability of the intake based on GCSE grades at 16 then assesses the value added by the time that final results are in. That is done college by college and subject by subject, but it can be done pupil by pupil to determine whether a pupil is being well served or is missing out, whether it is worth taking an additional exam after AS-level, and whether it is worth resitting an exam if the pupil does not do well at 18.
	I commend that work, which is supported by the local learning and skills council, to Ministers. I am sure that they are aware of that more sophisticated technique, which I believe is far better than comparing colleges and schools using simple league tables based on raw examination results. I hope that it will become the way forward for all education institutions.
	The Green Paper gives a good start to the debate that must now take place on the future of 14 to 19 education. I am sorry that the Conservative spokesman got sidetracked into political points, because we should discuss the issue constructively. There is much meat in the Green Paper, which points the way forward; we can discuss the details later. I believe that the document offers more opportunities to our young peopleopportunities for which they are ready and which they deserveand I commend it to the House.

Phil Willis: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), whose comments were thoughtful and careful. I wish I had a Bury connectionI have been desperately trying to think of a way to draw together with the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis). Alas, I can think of no connection other than the fact that as a youngster I played at Gigg lane against Bury schoolboys and against the Bury team that played against Burnley in one of the junior leagues. I hope that that connection is sufficient to enable me to join the Bury club. I thought that the first diploma to be offered might be the Bury diploma, which would receive a lot of supportalbeit not among those who live in Manchester.
	I apologise for slightly misleading the House earlier. A question was asked about the definition of higher educationhere I apologise to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire. It was originally asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on behalf of the Liberal Democrat education team, and the answer was published this week. I shall read it out for the benefit of those hon. Members who are interested. It says:
	The purposes of higher education are: to provide high quality teaching to a widening body of students; to undertake research and scholarship which competes with the best in the world; to transfer knowledge and understanding to the economy and the wider community for the benefit of all; and to sustain a culture which underpins our democracy and encourages critical thinking.[Official Report, 18 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 112W.]
	So there we have it.

Alistair Burt: Does the hon. Gentleman share my bemusement at the fact that after six months the question, What is the definition of higher education for the purposes of the Government's target of 50 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds being in higher education or having had the higher education experience by 2010? has still not been answered?

Phil Willis: I recognise[Interruption.] That is a new definition coming in, which is somewhat confusing. The fact that it took six months for the combined talents in the Department to come up with it is slightly worrying, but we have it now and the House can rest easy in the knowledge.
	I applaud the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State for allowing this debate on the Green Paper 14-19: extending opportunities, raising standards to go ahead. It is the first time since I became a Member of Parliament in 1997 that an education Green Paper has been debated. If this is a new way of working, it is to be commended, and I congratulate Ministers on it.
	Like the right hon. Member for Dewsbury, I support the idea of engaging young people in the debate. Although we could all criticise the publication that is to be distributed among young people, it is a commendable effort by the Department and reveals an approach that I urge all Departments to adopt. The more we engage young people in broader social policy, the more chance we have of engaging them in the major political debates and in the community.
	The Minister might well correct me on this point, but it strikes me as sad that the document does not fully address one of the greatest problems of exclusion among young peoplethe fact that black, Afro-Caribbean, Bangladeshi and Pakistani youngsters are far more likely not to continue their education, far more likely to be excluded, and far more likely not to engage in the education process. It is interesting that many members of those communities make a real effort to return to education later in life. When considering the responses to the Green Paper, I urge the Under-Secretary to think about those communities in particular and to engage them in the debate.
	My party will respond positively to the Secretary of State's challenge. We urge all those with influence in the education world, be it political or otherwise, to engage appropriately. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made it clear that we have failed in this area in the past, and this is a good opportunity for us to succeed.
	I assure the Minister that, although some of my comments may be critical, they are meant to be helpful. I am sure that he and the Minister for School Standards will take them as such.
	There can be little dissent in the House about supporting the challenges laid down by the Secretary of State in her introduction to the Green Paper or the aims set out in chapter 1.4. The outcomes in chapter 1.29higher levels of participation; a commitment by all to lifelong learning; increased employability; more rounded students; a reduction in truancy; and a greatly improved system of 14 to 19 education and trainingare all worthy. Indeed, they are so worthy that I expected motherhood and apple pie and an acceptance of creationism to complete the list. However, I shall not go into that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because that is for another day.
	I can say in all sincerity that I applaud the vision of a coherent 14 to 19 key stage, but it is sad that, as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire rightly said, the report has missed some of the hard issues that were so courageously identified in Bridging the Gap, in the Moser report, in the national skills taskforce reports and in successive annual reports from the Office for Standards in Education and the Further Education Funding Council about our schools and colleges.
	The Green Paper is ultra cautious and the proposals it contains are far from coherent. To be blunt, I believe that since 1944 our education system has served the majority of young people aged 14 to 19 pretty well under Governments of any political persuasion. The raising of the school leaving age, the post-Robbins expansion in higher education, the advent of comprehensive education and the reforms of the late 1980s, including the introduction of the national curriculum and local management of schools, have considerably enhanced the life chances of many of our young people.
	However, that is not what the Green Paper is principally trying to address. It is supposed to be addressing the life chances of the 5 per cent. of our young people who gain no GCSEs, the 50 per cent. who do not achieve five good GCSEs and the 15 per cent. who are not in any form of education or training by the age of 18. I want to concentrate on those areas.
	Throughout the Green Paper, mention is made of the fact that it is supposed to address the chronic skills shortage that threatens to leave the United Kingdom floundering in an ever more competitive global marketplace. Some 20 per cent. of adults lack functional literacy and numeracy, 36 per cent. have lower than level 2 skills compared with 27 per cent. in France and 17 per cent. in Germany. The estimated cost to employers of low skills in our economy is 10 billion a year, and social exclusion through low wages, lack of satisfaction and lack of opportunity creates a vicious circle of social and economic deprivation for individual workers. The Green Paper does not fully address those problems.

John Mann: I have listened to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that there is a lack of research in certain areas to quantify the broad statements that he is making, especially in relation to the coalfields? In coalfield areas between 1944 and the present time, young people in many schools have been described as pit fodder. There is a lack of information on the section of the community who have been badly represented and are lumped into the grand category of underperformers.

Phil Willis: With respect, I do not quite know what point the hon. Gentleman is making, other than to support my comments. The reality is that most of the indices of educational and training performance or access to training show that, up to level 3, we significantly underperform compared with our European competitors and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development averages. That is the point I was making. It does not matter whether these young people are in the coalfields of Yorkshire, the former steel areas of the north-east or the rural areas of Cornwall, if they are underachieving and not fulfilling their potential, that is an issue for the House and for the Green Paper.

John Mann: Will my hon. Friend give way again?

Phil Willis: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman calls me his hon. Friend, and I shall give way.

John Mann: I am agreeing with his points about underperformance. Does he agree that it is precisely that breakdown by specific areas that is lacking? In the coalfields in particular, the tremendous underachievement and lack of aspiration has not been recognised. I have tabled 30 parliamentary questions on this issue in the past two weeks, but all the answers give the same broadbrush categorisation and cannot give specific figures for the coalfields. A breakdown of key areas of the community is essential in tackling underachievement and lack of aspiration.

Phil Willis: I did not want to belittle the point that the hon. Gentleman was making. I thought that he was supporting my comments. I totally agree with him. When the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and I sat for many happy hours considering the Learning and Skills Bill, we knew that that would be one of the objectives of the Learning and Skills Council, especially the regional councils. They would do the research that the hon. Gentleman wants. [Interruption.] The Minister, who is noted for his courtesy, says from a sedentary position that it is a bit early. I would like to know when the Learning and Skills Council will deliver on anything, let alone on this key area. Frankly, I am fed up with constantly hearing the excuse that it is too early. This is a vital issue, and we cannot plan for skills shortages unless we have the data that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) rightly referred to, and I thank him for that.
	It is precisely because of the skills shortages, which have been identified by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that I am surprised that in her introduction to the Green Paper the Secretary of State does not mention training. Not once in the introduction is that word mentioned, yet the person who wrote chapter 1it may well have been the Ministerobviously recognised the importance of training, because it is included as a key aim and a key outcome. It says that the Government aim to achieve
	a greatly improved 14-19 system of education and training which is of world-class standard and of which we can be proud.
	My criticism is that the Green Paper does not reflect training needs.
	I understand the Secretary of State's caution about vocational education and training. She is right when she says that she wants to wage a war on vocational snobbery. However, that requires more than indignant words: it needs an understanding of the problem, courage and huge commitment, especially in resources. Skoda did not turn round the image of its cars by indignant outpouring. It did so by making its product affordable, desirable and of high quality. There is nothing wrong with espousing the concept of vocational training provided that the product we deliver to our young people is desirable, affordable and of high quality.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: I shall give way, provided that the hon. Gentleman does not drive a Skoda.

Kelvin Hopkins: As I come from Luton, I drive a Vauxhall. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this problem seems to have been cracked on the continent, particularly in Germany, where vocational qualifications seem to have equal status with other forms of educational qualification?

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment. That is clearly the case, and not just in Germany. I visited Holland, where vocational education, especially that from 14 to 19, has a parity of esteem with what people in this country would describe as academic education. In Scandinavia, one finds exactly the same: vocational education is regarded as an alternative way of delivering education and training, not as an inferior or superior system. What is patently wrong with our vocational system is that, all too often, it appears to be second best and sub-standard. That is why we have real difficulty in turning young people on in that way.
	That is not a new problem. I began teaching in 1963I know that that is a long time agoin a secondary modern school in Leeds. In the same year, the Newsom report was published, which some hon. Members will remember. It was appropriately named Half our Future. I wondered whether the Green Paper would be called The Other Half of our Future. The Newsom report stated:
	all schools should provide a choice of programmes including a range of courses broadly related to the occupational interest for pupils in the fourth and fifth years of a five year course.
	The outcome of that report and Government policy from 1963 onwards was remarkable for its lack of success. It singularly failed to deliver for the youngsters who were identified by Newsom as requiring an alternative curriculum at that time. It was unsuccessful because, in Newsom's words, it aimed to reflect the reality of working-class adult life.
	A huge message must be received by the Under-Secretary and his colleagues before they bring the White Paper back to the House. We must never return to the days when we had a pseudo class-ridden education system. To compliment the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, the 1988 reforms were aimed at doing exactly the oppositethey tried to establish a middle-class education system for all, with middle-class values. I do not say that in a derogatory way; that was the aspiration. Before we throw that out, we must be sure that we have something better to put in its place. We must not, therefore, make the same mistake. Instead, we must aim to create a world-class training culture beginning at 14.
	Vocational GCSEs may broaden the existing curriculum. I accept totally the point made by the right hon. Member for Dewsbury that we have got into the habit of calling them vocational GCSEs, and I do so purely as a way of picking up from the Green Paper. Will they capture the imagination of a target group of young people who know that they are unlikely to fare better in assessment terms than they do now? Vocational GCSEs are not the whole answer. If we are to introduce parity with GCSE qualifications, we might, by definition, make some marginal inroads into the 50 per cent. who do not get 5 A to Cs. However, let us not pretend, other than by dropping the standard, as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire seemed to indicate, that that will address the issue.
	The key training initiative in the Green Paper is the modern apprenticeship. It appears, however, that the advice from the Secretary of State's advisory committee is being ignored. Sir John Cassels, in his report, The Way to Work, found that apprenticeships were too peripheral to education and training. He reported that young people do not choose them, parents do not value them as a worthwhile route, careers advisers see them as a last resort, and, what is more, 93 per cent. of Britain's employers are not engaged with modern apprenticeships at all, yet that is the big idea for the training programme in the Green Paper.
	The Under-Secretary would also accept that, when inspection was introduced in 1988, it highlighted huge problems of weak initial assessment, poor induction, poor tackling of key skills, a hit-and-miss approach to off-the-job training, and poor monitoring. To be fair, I also accept that, since inspection has been introduced, those standards have risen. The reality, however, is that modern apprenticeships may be a good idea for a small number of young people but are not the mass panacea that is required if we are to meet some of the huge training needs of our students. I therefore urge the Under- Secretary, as it is not apparent in the Green Paper, to put employers at the centre of the training agenda. If he does not do that, and focuses purely on delivery by schools and colleges, he will fail and he will have missed the boat.
	I offer the Under-Secretary the concept of chartered institutes on the lines of traditional guilds, which could be given the responsibility for developing training programmes at prescribed levels. The Government could ensure that chartered status means a right of access to higher education, and allow employers to have direct access to funding on a level playing field with other providers. We cannot hope to win the support of employers if they are not equal partners. Without their endorsement, work-related education and training will never succeed.

Ivan Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the replacement of the national training organisations with the sector skills councils will make a significant contribution towards improving those relationships? Does he also accept that the key to making this work in local communities is for educational institutions and small and medium-sized enterprises in particular to have much closer relationships than in the past; and that mentoring is making a significant contribution towards that? Does he also accept that, in terms of the modern apprenticeship, the very reason for establishing the Cassels commission was to tackle the issues that he has identified? We have agreed to practically all Sir John Cassels' recommendations.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his intervention and for the passionate way in which he responded to those accusations. I totally agree with him about breaking down the NTOs into sector-related andas I would call themchartered institutes. We must engage consumers, too. The right hon. Member for Dewsbury talked about having a plumbing GCSE, and I agree that we must give our trades the kind of esteem that we give other areas of the curriculum. Giving chartered status to tradesmen engenders confidence in the consumer, too, so that can be a win-win situation.
	The key to the success of the whole of the Government's programme on 14 to 19 education is empowerment of individual students. We applaud the concept of an individual learning plan for each student. We do so because it was in our 2001 manifesto. We are therefore delighted that the Under-Secretary has picked up yet another good idea. I am pretty sure that when he and his colleagues are in my constituency, spending huge amounts of money, they will talk of nothing else.
	Young people must be empowered to move from institution to institution. I include employers and private providers in that provision. The needs of young people, and not of providers, must be paramount. However, students must be supported by access to concessionary travel and education maintenance allowances. Those in work must also have the right to time off for study. The objectives will not be achieved if students do not have the necessary support mechanisms.
	It is no good offering greater choice and diversity to people in rural Devon or rural north Yorkshire. The infrastructure must be put in place to allow them to take advantage of diversity. It is no good claiming that education maintenance allowances work if they are not extended to students throughout the country.

Robert Syms: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is very important that pilot schemes cover rural as well as urban areas, to determine how students make choices. He is also right to say that matters such as transport are very important in rural areas.

Phil Willis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
	Students aged between 14 and 19 must have access to independent and individual careers education and guidance. At the moment, that is in very short supply.
	I have no problems with the Government's policy with regard to the Connexions service. It started by trying to help those students who most needed support. They were identified as low achievers who would probably drop out of the system otherwise. However, the idea that bright youngsters who might get more than five GCSEs at grades A to C do not need individual guidance or support is wrong.
	We must get away from the proposition that only schools can supply that guidance. In the past, schools have often used their influence to draw students into the programmes offered on those schools' menus. We must offer young people a menu involving a variety of institutions and employers, and that means that each student must also have access to individual advice.
	The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire spoke about providers, and especially about further education colleges. I do not often agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says, but I do on this occasion. When the Minister for School Standards responds to the debate, will he register an objection to the appalling comment made by the Minister for Lifelong Learning, which was repeated on the BBC programme Newsbeat on 7 March? She said:
	If you are a learner in a further education college, you have a 50-50 chance of coming out of that college having achieved what you set out to do, and that is not good enough.
	Was the Minister for Lifelong Learning speaking on behalf of the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister, or was she simply barking mad on that day? There is no evidence to back up that appalling slur on further education colleges. She must know that 68 colleges in this country have been inspected so far, and that only three have been judged inadequate. The inspectors found that 92 per cent. of teaching was satisfactory or better, that 93 per cent. of curriculum grades achieved were satisfactory or better, and that 58 per cent. of those grades were good or outstanding.
	We should celebrate our colleges, not denigrate them. We should not tell students not to go to them because they might end up with nothing. [Interruption.] The devil is in the detail, and I see that the Minister for Lifelong Learning has just entered the Chamber. I shall repeat what I have just said for her benefit. I can tell her that I asked the Minister for School Standards, when he winds up, to deal with her remarks of 7 March, in which she claimed that 50 per cent. of students were likely to leave college without achieving what they went to college to achieve.
	In 2000-2001, 85 per cent. of youngsters who entered FE colleges achieved the qualifications that they entered college to achieve. That huge achievement rate is to the credit of our colleges.
	If all that interests the Government is the number of students who enter further education, embarking on full-time coursesif that is the Government's vision, and how we are to measure successthe whole thing will fail: it will be an absolute waste of time. I applaud the student who enters an institution and, after one term, says This is not for me and thinks about where to go from there. I applaud the student who, after six months, drops out because of family arrangements or financial problems, and returns to college later. Are we to denigrate the college because a student falls on hard timesbecause, for instance, a young mum becomes pregnant again? That is what the Minister is saying. We must have a flexible system, because ultimately flexibility is the key.
	The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West made a point about the funding and organisation of education for those aged 14 and above, to which the Minister responded very abruptly. Indeed, she dismissed it out of hand, which is a pity. At present the education of 14 to 16-year-olds is funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and benefits from an additional grant from the Department for Education and Skills. Under the Learning and Skills Act 2000, however, learning and skills councils can fund their education, and under the new Education Bill they can also fund employers. Learning and skills councils also fund 16 to 19-year-olds in schools, and in further education colleges there are 73 different funding streams. It is sad that Ministers are saying that all that can be dismissed, and does not really matter.
	Let us consider the case of a student who spends some time in a school, some time in a college and some time in a workplace. Let us consider the bureaucratic paperchase involved in the attempt to audit the situationto establish where the money comes from, and to whom it goes. That must not happen.
	As my party has not made a firm decision in this regard, I will speak openly to the Minister. We were very supportive of the regional agenda, but the Government should not dismiss the idea of a single structure for 14 to 19-year-olds out of hand. It is surely a matter for discussion, regardless of whether the learning and skills legislation is the right vehicle.
	I am delighted that the Minister accepts that the issues of GCSE and the 16-plus barrier must be examined. I respect the view of some Conservative Members that GCSE in its present form should be retained and that all students should take it, full stop. However, I do not agree: I think that the examination has outlived its usefulness as a universal qualification for those aged 16-plus. It might well be used as a staging post if schools or colleges wanted that, but at present it constitutes a genuine barrier.
	David Hargreaves, the former chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, has made some important comments about GCSE. He says that in the case of many students it is an irrelevance, and that Government and indeed educators should stop always looking for age-related examinations and start looking for examinations to be taken by students when they are ready to take them.
	The right hon. Member for Dewsbury referred to the unit-accreditation system. I think it is entirely right for the sector we are discussing: we must constantly accredit young people's achievements throughout the process.
	I accept that we must have national norms. Perhaps we shall have a Bury certificate or diploma, or a Barking certificatebut that joke was made earlier, and it fell flat even then. Such a certificate is an interesting proposition, and one that we will seriously consider. We must not return to the idea that we can liberate the framework for 14 to 19-year-olds, while retaining a barrier that says schools are failing unless students meet the Government's target for five A to C grades. That is a major issue that the Government must address.

Ivan Lewis: Given the consensus that a far more individual-based learning programme is in the interests of the system and of young people, does the hon. Gentleman agree that GCSEs will still be appropriate for many young people? Does it remain his party's policy that GCSEs should be abolished?

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman should read again my north of England speech, a copy of which I kindly gave him. What my party and I object to is the universalist approach whereby all students should take GCSEs at 16. If an institution decides to examine literacy and numeracy to the national standards through GCSE english and mathematics at age 14 or 17, that is a matter of agreement between the student and institution concerned.
	I urge the Minister to avoid getting bogged down. If we want to liberate the process, we cannot at the same time argue that we must judge schools and ensure that they keep to their task through the principle of five GCSEs at grade A to C for 16-year-olds. The Minister should not turn his back on the idea of scrapping league tables for 16-year-olds, and of finding different ways to evaluate student progress and what schools, colleges and other providers do.

Ivan Lewis: I accept that we need to refine the way in which we measure performance, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if our reforms for 14 to 19-year-olds are to work, the issue is not the scrapping of league tables? I suspect that the speech to which he refers contains an element of spin. Is it his party's policy that GCSEs should be abolished?

Phil Willis: Other Members would probably rather speak than hear us bandy words about. I made it absolutely clear in my north of England speech that the universal application of GCSEs has had its day, but I have no problem with a school's wanting to use GCSEs as part of its process.
	Before the Minister gets too excited, I should explain what happens in some of the schools that I have visited. In year 11, students in those schools spend two to three weeks before Christmas preparing for their mock GCSEs. In the run-up to Easter, they spend another three or four weeks in preparation. They have a further four weeks' study leave, and then they spend three weeks sitting their GCSEs. That is some 13 weeks in total. After that, they have nine weeks off. If the Minister is condoning that amount of lost educational opportunity, he must say so. I want us to use that time in a much more productive and valuable way.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I tell the House that the first four speeches have taken 139 minutes, with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) clocking up the longest innings so far? To my mind, that represents self- indulgence. There are 11 hon. Members trying to take part in a debate that can now last only about 90 minutes. I ask for rather more restraint on their part if I am to satisfy as many as possible.

Kerry Pollard: It is almost a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). We last debated together in a television studio, when we were on opposite sides of the argument. I agreed with much of the sentiment behind his speech.
	On Shakers' credentials, I was a regular supporter at Gigg Lane years before any of the Front Benchers, and, I suspect, before my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor).
	The ages between 14 and 19 are when most young people decide which route to follow of the many available. Some will follow an academic route from secondary school to higher education, some will go to further education and some will leave school at 16 and go to work, or a combination of the two. That time is the gateway to their future. My constituency has excellent secondary schools, all with full rolls and highly successful sixth forms. Indeed, three of my schools came top in the performance league tables.
	We have an ongoing problem with a shortage of school places, as a result of which some students have to travel outside the town to secure a secondary school place. Each year, the county consults on how to resolve the problem. One year, the villages to the north are selected and the next the villages to the south, so the problem is batted about. This year, the villages to the north have been selected, with the Tory county council deciding that Sandringham school, which is bang in the middle of my constituency, should be allocated to Harpenden, which isincrediblyfive miles away. That beggars belief, and I have written to the Secretary of State to seek advice. I also presented a petition to Parliament last night, asking that that crazy scheme be overruled.
	All the sixth forms are highly successful, offering a range of academic and vocational courses. We also have a good FE college that provides a huge range of academic, vocational and recreational courses. All the post-16 providers work together in consortiums to ensure that the range, level and quality of arrangements for our students are first class.
	A cause for concern is the change in the funding arrangements, whereby the Learning and Skills Council has taken over responsibility from the local education authority. Our secondary schools are especially worried about the continued funding of their sixth forms. Over the years, a gap has opened up between the funding per pupil for sixth forms and for FE colleges. The worry is that a levelling down will occur, which would seriously jeopardise the continuing viability of our successful sixth forms.
	St. Albans has benefited from much capital expenditure over the past few years, including a new roof on Nicholas Breakspear school, a new gymnasium at Loreto school, a new sports centre at Marlborough school and new science facilities at Beaumont school. I could go on and on. Only this morning, the Under-Secretary with responsibility for early years and school standards opened a nursery centre of excellenceone of only 50 in the countryin my constituency. Many millions of pounds have been spent.
	Extra revenue has also been made available, in one form or another, to all our schools. By far the most popular form is the one-off sumstypically 50,000 for a secondary schoolthat the Chancellor has announced periodically. Those sums are not ring-fenced and can generally be used by schools to meet their own priorities. It is rumoured that later this week some more money will be available for teachers as part of the school achievement award.
	Some of our secondary schools were shut last week when the National Union of Teachers staged a one-day strike. I have total sympathy with and understanding of teachers' real concern, although I have my doubts about their method of drawing attention to it. However, I have stood on picket lines myself in years gone by.
	Teachers deserve to be treated the same as other professionals. It costs a teacher the same as a police officer to live in an expensive area. Teachers in my area receive a 750 cost of living allowance, whereas police officers receive two and a half times that amount.
	I wish to address the subject of apprenticeships. We are acutely short of plumbers, electricians, carpenters and others with light skills. Young people do not seem to be attracted to those highly skilled and highly paid trades. That shortage is seriously undermining our local and regional economy. One of the reasons for the shortage is that those skills are less valued than computing or business studies skills. Each skill is of equal value and we need brain surgeons and plumbersand more of the latter. When water is pouring through the ceiling, I know which I would prefer to be on hand.
	It is imperative that we actively promote the concept of vocational skills. I recently met the Federation of Master Builders, which shares my concern. It proposes an innovative idea whereby young people start their apprenticeships in year 11. We all know of young people who see little value in continuing their studies in year 11 but who might be happy to begin their transition into work while still at school.
	Another scheme is run at Feltham young offenders centre. One of the training arms of Ford motor company has set up a pilot scheme to train young offenders to become motor mechanics. The scheme has been working since October with, I am told, 20 young offenders taking part. Once they have finished their sentence, they will complete their apprenticeship in a Ford garage in their area.
	That seems a fantastic scheme. It is a great credit both to Ford and the prison authorities. My guess is that those young people will grow in confidence and self-esteem as a direct result of that initiative, will end up with a marketable skill and will resume their role as a productive member of society.
	I pay tribute to Tony Bartlett, who retires today after being head teacher at Marlborough school in my constituency for the past 18 years. He is an educator to his fingertips, an inspirational leader who has transformed a failing school. It is now fullit has a full sixth-formand is immensely popular. His retirement is a loss to education. He is one of the best men I know and I wish him well. I commend the Green Paper.

Robert Syms: My contribution will be equally brief, given the number of hon. Members who wish to contribute to the debate.
	My perception of education at the moment is that there is a crisis. When I visit schools, two things clearly emerge. The first is the amount of bureaucracythe circulars to schools from the Department for Education and Skills, and the amount of time it takes teachers and head teachers to read them. The second is the shortage of teachers.
	A total of 300,000 qualified teachers under the age of 60 are no longer in education. In 2001in this era of acute teacher shortage83,400 people who held teaching certificates had never used them. The number of teacher vacancies has risen in England and Wales. In 2001, it rose to 5,079, up nearly 60 per cent. on the 2,977 vacancies in 2000. Therefore, many of my schools are struggling to deliver core subjects in the curriculum.
	I recently visited Poole high school, which has a problem with mathematics teachers. The problem is not unique to Poole high school; it affects many schools throughout the country. The school has a number of classes with no maths teachers; pupils are simply being supervised. The situation is made a lot worse by the fact that the Government are funding more advisers, the pay scales for whom are leading more teachers to leave schools; Poole local education authority has lost six experienced teachers. I am not sure that there are the means of delivering many of the Green Paper's lofty aspirations.
	I welcome a number of things in the Green Paper. We clearly have a chronic skills shortage throughout the United Kingdom, and to tackle it a much broader range of skills will have to be delivered. Three quarters of 16 to 18-year-olds in England were either in education or in training at the end of 2000, which is below European, OECD and G7 levels. If we are to retain a world-class economy and be not the fourth largest economy in the world but the third largest, we must produce a lot more people with a greater range of skills.
	I welcome the teaching of citizenship, which is long overdue and necessary. Problems arise when we create pathways whereby people have to go to more than one institution. The difficulty in rural areas is that people are not going to have the same choices as those in urban areas. When I was on the education committee in my former life as a local councillor, the question of people having to travel between institutions tended to loom large.
	As the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) said, advice for pupils will be remarkably important. The Green Paper says that there will be little additional burden on teachers, that there may be more training and that there will be implications for employing more teachers, but I do not think that it says enough about that. Although it sets out the vision, as it were, it asks lots of very wide questions, as the Minister acknowledged in his reply to my intervention. When we get the consultation about where we are heading, we will have to decide how to execute policy. With a shortage of teachers, it will be very difficult to execute a policy over the next few years. That is my principal point.
	My next point is on funding. One of Dorset's disadvantages is that it is in the south-west of the country and does not get the area cost adjustment. Poole borough council suffers grievously from not receiving the area cost adjustment. There are gapsabout 200 per pupil in the resources that Poole and Hampshire receiveaffecting almost all age groups. It will be difficult to deliver good-quality education. The area cost adjustment is worth 6.2 per cent. extra to our neighbour in Hampshire. If that were available to Poole, the local education authority would receive an extra 3.482 million a year. During my five years as an MP, Poole has been deprived of about 17.5 million of education provision for its pupils.
	When the Government decided to remove post-16 funding and introduce learning and skills councils, they institutionalised the area cost adjustment within those funding arrangements. Many schools in my area are suffering from a shortage of teachers and of resources. They work hard and produce good results in the national league tables, but it is not easy without full support. Delivery in Poole will therefore require greater emphasis on securing the requisite teachers, and better and fairer funding for our local schools, which we are not receiving.
	The document has important implications for teacher supply and teacher work load, and more should have been said about them if we want the strategy to succeed.
	Those are my major points. In order to give other hon. Members a chance to contribute to the debate, I shall conclude.

Gillian Merron: I welcome the opportunity to talk about the Green Paper on extending opportunities, raising standards. Let me say straight away that the title should include an additional element about developing aspirations. I refer not just to the aspirations of young people, but to those of their families, who have a crucial role in developing potential.
	Those involved in education in my constituency generally welcome the Green Paper, particularly its tone, intention and direction. Any criticisms have been constructive and should help to inform the Government in their efforts to help 14 to 19-year-olds to reach their potential. The Government's long-term commitment to education, particularly the concept of education for life, is especially welcome. Any age is the right age to develop one's education.
	The Green Paper is all about seeing young people as whole people who have individual differences, strengths, weaknesses and talents. The reference to ensuring high-quality advice and guidance, to which several hon. Members have referred, is also important. If young people are to make the right choices at 14 and then get to wherever they want to go, we have to help them. That applies particularly to young people with special needs, who have an untapped wealth of potential that we should help them to fulfil. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) mentioned that we need expertise, time and the right people in place to support 14 to 19-year-olds and help them decide where they want to go.
	I want to make three main points relating to collaboration or partnership, vocational development and encouraging a wider range of young people to set their sights on getting to university.
	Last week, at Yarborough school in Lincoln, I saw in action a good example of the intent of the main proposals in the Green Paperan enterprise activity. A number of 15-year-old students who had been specially selected and had agreed to participate were looking for a niche for their talents; they found it in work that took place over two days, sponsored and supported by Stamford Homes. Teams of young people worked together to seek planning permission for, build, market and sell homes in Lincoln. They were even required to fill in planning application forms, for which they have my greatest admiration. They also earned the admiration of the planning officer at Lincoln City council, who was impressed by their work.
	The activity involved team building, communication, self-confidence, conflict resolution, presentation and marketing skills, development of business acumen and the ability to use maths and English, to name just a few skills. That is the sort of activity to which the Green Paper refers. I asked the young people involved whether it had made a difference and whether they might consider staying on at school. As we all know, unless young people stay on beyond 16, they might never consider university. Their answer was yes, because they could see a niche in their school for their talents and skills. I commend Yarborough school and Mr. Legg, the head teacher, and his team, for seeing the possibility of working with a company such as Stamford Homes to offer young people such an opportunity.
	The school is also developing incubator units for young people who want to start a business. We have nothing similar in the locality, and we need to be able to provide support and facilities if we are to encourage young people to consider going into business.
	As we head towards April's Budget, it is interesting to note that an independent review by the chairman of the Financial Services Authority, Howard Davies, which was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, recommends that business people should go into the classroom and discuss careers and enterprise with pupils. Mr. Davies urges the Government to allocate many millions of pounds to the programme, which, as he rightly points out, would offer pupils a grounding in finance and the economy. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will consider that in his budgetary considerations.
	Let me give an example of collaboration and partnership with industry that is taking place in my constituency. As several hon. Members have said, industry and business are vital to the Green Paper's success. Alstom Power, a company that makes gas turbines in my constituency, has taken up the challenge. At its conference centre in Lincoln, it hosted the national launch of the science and engineering ambassadors scheme. The idea is to send ambassadors to schools to spread the word that engineering and science-based careers are exciting, worth while and should be considered. Fifteen young Alstom engineers have agreed to tell young people about the opportunities available if they work hard at subjects such as science, engineering, technology and maths. As Alstom currently has 30 science and technology vacancies, it obviously benefits that company and others to encourage would-be engineers to train and appreciate the advantages of that. Mark Papworth, the managing director, said that he would like to see young people
	flow through the education pipeline directly into businesses such as ours.
	There is a place for them, and the Green Paper has to make that happen.
	The science and engineering ambassadors scheme is a model for good practice, and I hope that Ministers will promote it. The City of Lincoln community college, a school that is bidding to become a specialist engineering college with the support of Alstom Power, believes that we must quash the myth that engineering is a dirty and undesirable industry in which to work. Barbara Peck, the head teacher, has said that students have limited pictures of engineering and science, fixing on stereotypes and a history of redundancies. That sets the wrong tone when it comes to persuading more people into engineering. I hope that the science and engineering ambassadors scheme, in which role models say I've done it, it's worth doing, will bring more young people into engineering.
	To widen participation it is important not only to meet the Government's target of having 50 per cent. of young people go into higher education, but to consider who those people are. The Green Paper offers us a way to do that. The figure for those who apply to university from Lincoln is barely half the national average. In certain wardsAbbey, Boultham and Parkparticipation in higher education is less than a third of the national average. Clearly, a problem exists to be addressed in my constituency, and elsewhere.
	The key to widening participation is early intervention. Many people would say that 14 is too late, and I hope that Ministers will consider that. Connexions, further education colleges and universities must be able to engage young people at 14. Not all schools allow access, but I was pleased to accompany my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning to the university of Lincoln to see a widening participation scheme in action. As part of a scheme involving local schools, young people were invited to the university to experience what it might be like.
	The university should be congratulated for working with 11 associate schools, including the City of Lincoln community college and Ancaster high school. The Green Paper should encourage such good practice. Associate schools sign up with the university so that it can offer them academic advice, technical and other resource advice, opportunities for staff development and focused open days. Ex-pupils who are now university of Lincoln students can go back to their schools to promote the idea of going into higher education.
	Key to the process is the making of early conditional offers to individual students who, for a variety of reasons, need to be encouraged to think about going to university. I asked some of the young people whether anyone from their villages had ever been to university. The answer was no, and that they had never thought about it. Having visited the university, however, they could see that it was possible. That is the kind of work that the Green Paper needs to encourage.
	On vocational development, the Green Paper proposes that all young people should undertake some work-related learning. We could all learn something from that. Recently, I was shadowed by Caroline Bray, a student from Lincoln Christ's Hospital school, who wanted to find out what it is like to be a Member of Parliamentif anyone wants to know, they had better ask her. I learned a lot from her work placement, not least because she asked the questions that we rarely have time to ask ourselves. If business and industry encourage and support work placements, it is not only the young people who will benefitthe firms will benefit tooand those young people may be able to see their future role, whether as Members of Parliament, entrepreneurs, managers or whatever.
	As many right hon. and hon. Members have said, the vocational option should not be seen as a second option; it should be seen as a positive choice which can feed much into specialist schools. There are some exciting possibilities and I am not sure that they have been fully considered. Perhaps the Green Paper could encourage the combination of subjects, as is done in universities. Science and engineering could be put together, as could history and the heritage industry and foreign languages and tourism. That policy could contribute to a move away from vocational work being seen as second class which it is far from being.
	I am interested in the new award at 19, possibly to be called a matriculation diploma, as it would raise aspirations and would better prepare young people for working life. They would participate in activities related to active citizenship, work-based learning and wider interests. That part of the Green Paper interests me because I believe that to succeed in the world these days one needs to be more than merely academic; one needs to be a grounded person who has a real understanding of what life is about. I hope that the new award at 19 will focus on that.
	To gain success and the achievements set out in the Green Paper, we need to challenge certain perceptions. We talked about the need to challenge the notion that vocational courses are inferior to academic courses; they are not. It is important to promote the schemes that I described, which are supported by companies such as Alstom, as well as the associate schools programme at the university of Lincoln and to support new specialist schools.
	Finance is another area that concerns me, and those concerns were endorsed when I met a group of students at the university of Lincoln to discuss positive ideas for student financial support. I realised that their perception of the level of repayments on loans was far in excess of the reality. That is important because if we want to encourage young people to stay on at school so that they can go to university, they must know what the reality is. Those students were not aware that six out of 10 students in Lincoln pay no fees or that a graduate has to earn more than 10,000 before any repayment on their loan is required. Indeed, a graduate earning 11,000 a year would be repaying 90 a year.
	As was endorsed in my discussions at the Bishop Grosseteste teacher training college in Lincoln, a number of potential students and their families are put off staying on at school in order to go into higher education because they are frightened of debt. If the fear of debt is preventing people from fulfilling their potential, we have two problemsthe problem of actual debt and the even bigger problem of not understanding the true picture. We have a job of work to get the true information across so that people are not unnecessarily worried.
	On education maintenance allowances, North Lincolnshire college and the Lincolnshire LEA certainly consider that there is a need for them nationally, and they would like their scope to be extended.
	I very much welcome the Green Paper; it gives us a very strong basis on which to work. Education, as we all know, is the key that unlocks the door. It gives choices that people may be denied, possibly because of their backgrounds, and it opens minds. I believe that education is a great leveller upwards. We should raise expectations, not lower them.
	The Green Paper allows us to envisage a plan not only for individuals and their families, but for industry, the education system and the country. It is time that we removed artificial ceilings on aspirations, and we, as a Government, have a responsibility to do so. I commend the Green Paper to the House because I believe that, by extending opportunity and raising standards and aspirations, it will take us along the right road.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I read the Green Paper with interest, but I saw little on special needs training and teaching for children aged 14 to 19. I tried to find out whether there was an audit of special needs teachers and trainers in the United Kingdom, but there does not seem to be; nor could I find out how many teachers are special needs trained. When I talked to people at the Dyslexia Institute, which is by far the largest special needs training body in the country, they said they could stream children aged 5 to 6, but by the time those children become 14or young adultsthey can do little because by then the education system has almost failed them.
	I wonder whether the Government would consider the American system. In the 1970s and 1980s, there were reading wars in America, believe it or not, and a debate in Congress on how children would be taught to read from an early age to when they left college at 19. Congress passed the Reading Excellence Act and gave $110 million for 10 years' research into longevity and convergencein other words, how reading will be affected in future. America is therefore almost at the forefront of special needs teaching in the world.
	In the United Kingdom, there has been three years' research into literacy on behalf of all children and there is only enough money to evaluate 250 children. Unfortunately, because of the amount of money given to the researchers, they have had to lower the age from 14which they wanted to useto seven and a half. The money was given by the Department for Education and Skills, the lottery and, interestingly enough, W. H. Smith. Together, those three bodies gave 500,000 to examine that very complicated and difficult subject. However, as I have said, there is nothing about that in the Green Paper.
	I also wonder whether the Minister is aware that the Dyslexia Institute is directly helping children aged 14 to 19 who are on remand or bail. Instead of excluding them from the education system or not allowing them to take part because they have been stigmatised in the eyes of society, the institute is trying to help with their education because a lot of those people have special needs problems. They can then return to mainstream education, so that they can read, write and articulate themselves, as we can, and be given the chance to go forward and get jobs or start apprenticeship schemes. That issue needs to be considered because, again, nothing in the Green Paper addresses it.
	I also considered the school census, which I mentioned in a debate two days ago. The Government want to include in the schools census children's names, addresses and postcodes, on which I have a particular view, but I wonder whether there is a chance to include special needs training. If no one keeps such records and considers the issue in the longer term, people will not be able to carry out certain academic research and we will not be privy to it. Surely one way of doing that is to include that information in the schools census, so that education departments, research establishments and other organisations have a chance to evaluate what special needs training those young adults will require, not only now but 10 to 20 years from now.
	The legal ramifications are interesting. In America people have taken the American Government to court for failing them in education. Under the convention on human rights that we have enshrined in our legislation, will we have the same problem, at least potentially, whereby we have not developed a child's ability as far as we could because we have failed in special needs? I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.
	The Minister could consider helping the Dyslexia Institute. It has 360 staff, most of whom are teachers and virtually all part-time on a low wage. It is trying to pioneer distance learning for as many people as possible throughout the United Kingdom. It covers the whole United Kingdom. In that way it can deal with problems without somebody having to get to a certain location, unlike the Learning and Skills Council. People can log on at a library or some further education centre to continue study on, for example, the three Rs. The institute is looking for some help from the Government. I see nothing about this in the Green Paper, yet this is the very age group that needs help now.
	A slight problem arises with the devolved countries of Wales and Scotland. The Scottish education system is different from ours and faces a problem getting enough specialists through the system to teach in Scottish schools. The situation in Wales is better because the system is the same as in England. Again, would the Minister look at that?
	This country is the undisputed leader in this type of education within Europe. We are leading the way, which is marvellous, but can we keep the momentum? The Dyslexia Institute is exporting its expertise to European countries in an effort to take education forward. An hon. Member made an interesting point about language training. Any dyslexic will find English and other languages difficult. If we can encourage other countries to take part in language training, surely it will be of benefit to us all.
	Last year the Dyslexia Institute looked at 3,048 young adults and children across 145 outposts and 94 extra outposts to try to make sure that all young people regardless of age have a chance of being seen by a specialist if they feel that they need help. It is also working to look at 7,200 psychological assessments. Special needs covers not just the inability to interface in mainstream schools, but help at other levels. I am not saying that any part of the community is better or worse than another; I am just saying that people need to be assessed at that level. The fact that the institute with the small amount of resources at its disposal is looking at 7,200 people a year shows that there is a problem at this level.
	In summary, I ask the Minister to look into this for the future because there are ways to address it. Research has been done in America and is being done here, but it needs a commitment from Government to look ahead. Since 1970 when dyslexia, dyspraxia and other conditions were discovered, all Governments have failed to address the problem through a lack of financial commitment. I ask the Government to give a commitment in the Green Paper or in future legislation that they will provide funding or look into funding, either through county councils, specific educational trusts, universities or other organisations, to help these children as they cannot help themselves. Direct intervention is needed by Parliament to put money into education departments across the United Kingdom. This is a United Kingdom problem; it is not specific to any one area. I hope that the Minister will take those points on board and will not let our children down. In this area we all fail our children.

Kelvin Hopkins: I must declare an interest in that I am vice-chair of governors at Luton sixth form college. I have been associated with the college for nearly two decades. It was the first sixth form college, is one of the largest and has a tremendous record of success in educating young people. There is also a first-class college of further education, Barnfield college, in my constituency. We have heard much about further education colleges and their successes. I taught A-levels in various subjects, so I have some experience.
	When I was teaching in the 1970s, I noticed that the enormous difference between those studying A-levels and those studying other subjects was one of social class. In our college, we tried to educate A-level students and others, such as day-release students doing manual courses, in the same classes, at least in liberal studies. That is where those social divisions really showed up. Our educational problems have been complicated by social divisions. I am glad to say that they are reducing, but I fear that if we are not careful, those social divisions will re-emerge and become strengthened by the fragmentation of our education system, particularly at secondary level.
	I worry about some of the Government's initiatives on specialist schools. The parental choice approach to secondary schools is also causing problems of social class. That will undermine not just the comprehensive system, but our success in bringing those who have not achieved so highly up to the standards of which they are capablestandards that we want them to reach.
	Widening participation means considering those who are at the bottom end of educational achievement, not those at the top. Fragmenting the system and introducing specialist schools is to do what we have always done: considering the top end, rather than the bottom. Those of us who had the good fortune to go to university and who had a fairly pressured, rigorous secondary education have had all the advantages, and we must ensure that the rest of the populationthe two thirds, or three quarters, who never had themhave them in future, especially those in the bottom two or three deciles.
	Luton sixth form college has many successes. At the moment, 60 per cent. of its students are from ethnic minorities. Every year, 500 ethnic minority students, mainly from the Asian communities, obtain A-levels and go on, mostly into higher education. In terms of integrating into society people who have come from the far-flung fields of Pakistan and Bangladesh, from the Indian communities and the West Indies, Luton sixth form college is doing a tremendous job at every level. However, it has its problems.
	The Sixth Form Colleges Employers' Forum Ltd. recently published a document called In a Class of their Own. I know that it has been passed on to the Minister, who has kindly written back saying what a good document it is. All hon. Members should get hold of a copy, and I draw attention to the last page, which states that if we doubled the number of sixth form colleges, we would transform education in this country.
	The sixth form college is a very efficient way of educating people. Such colleges take students who have lower abilities. The value-added factor for marginal ability students is tremendous in sixth form colleges. That is because they have optimum-sized classes. Very small classes do not work, neither do very large ones. The optimum class size of sixth form colleges really does work. In addition, a variety of teachers teach the same subject. That leads not to competition between the teachers, but to a variety of approaches, which leads to best practice from different teachers. Students who have particular strengths can tune their subjects carefully because they have the maximum possible subject choice owing to the large number of parallel classes. That cannot be done in small school sixth forms.
	I went to a small school sixth form, so I know that they do a good job in many ways, but they are limiting. Sixth form colleges provide all the advantages of variety, which helps students to play to their strengths. They will not be tied to particular groups of subjects because that is all that is taught in the school.

Chris Grayling: Doubling the number of sixth form colleges, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, would effectively remove school sixth forms. Surely he realises that many pupils and parents value school sixth forms and want to retain them.

Kelvin Hopkins: I believe that one London borough has replaced its school sixth forms with a sixth form college. That can be particularly effective in densely populated urban areas. If one can explain to parents that a sixth form college will make their children perform better and get better results, most will accept it. On the other hand, I appreciate that sensitive problems are sometimes involved. People who know great schools that they have been through and loved can find it upsetting and threatening to see them change.
	For our education system to be successful, we must consider what works, and sixth form colleges, like colleges in general, work. In Luton, we have state high schools for 11 to 16-year-olds, one Catholic high school for 11 to 18-year-olds, the sixth form college and a big further education college. That works in an area where a high proportion of parents are from non-traditional backgrounds. Many are from ethnic minorities and some come from extremely poor backgrounds, but their children do well because our system works. Rather than having theories that favour a certain system, such as allowing small schools to develop their sixth forms, let us do some research to find out what works.

Mark Francois: A powerful principle in this matter is that of choice. We should allow parents, and indeed students, to choose of their own volition which is the better optiona local sixth form college or a sixth form in a school. We should not take them down one route and reduce their choice by abolishing sixth forms and putting everyone into sixth form colleges.

Kelvin Hopkins: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the situation in Luton, where the great majority of people want their youngsters to go to the sixth form college because it is a good college and they know that they will do well. That is fine, but if one does as the hon. Gentleman suggests and allows free choice, banding out into social classes will recur. That does not help education.

Annette Brooke: Local choices can be important, and the hon. Gentleman is giving a local illustration. However, does he agree that another solution is for sixth forms to work together, co-operating rather than competing to allow for a certain range of subjects to be taught at certain schools? In an urban area, that could enable a young person who has not matured sufficiently to stay in their own community school for at least several days a week.

Kelvin Hopkins: I entirely accept the hon. Lady's point, but it goes at least halfway, if not further, towards what I am advocating: collaboration to achieve economies of scale and a sufficient variety of subjects for students to choose to suit their needs and talents. Sixth forms in some schools could specialise in certain subjects and have more students, more teachers and optimal class sizes. The hon. Lady makes a fair suggestion, and it would not lead to the problem of disrupting schools and upsetting people who are attached to their schools. However, sixth form colleges should at least be given a fair crack of the whip.
	My final point concerns the serious funding gap between sixth form colleges and schools. Sixth form college teachers are paid less than school sixth form teachers, and the funding per pupil that colleges receive is about one third below that received by schools. They are not treated well, yet they do a fantastic job. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), who has left the Chamber, referred to the danger of funding for school sixth forms being levelled down to equal that of colleges. I ask Ministers to honour our commitment to sixth form colleges by pressing the Treasury to level up the funding so they are treated as fairly as schools. In time, we will move towards education provision by sixth form colleges, and the sooner we do so the better.

Mark Hoban: I want to focus my comments principally on the Green Paper, which deals with extending opportunities, raising standards. It contains much that we can all support. I particularly welcome the possibility for pupils to fast track on their exams, but we must bear in mind the central importance of GCSEs and the risk that, if we leave GCSEs to less able pupils, there may be a problem with parity of esteem. I am also pleased to see the emphasis on high-quality vocational education. It is important that when we offer children a vocational route, the education that they receive is of a high quality, and I shall turn to aspects of that in a moment.
	The introduction to the Green Paper refers to the need to
	engage those young people who have traditionally been alienated and disaffected from school.
	The objective to meet the needs of those pupils is absolutely right, and I share the aspiration in the Green Paper to have a more flexible curriculum to re-engage those children. There is a distinct logic in the idea that to attract children into school and keep their attention, we must make sure that we match their aspirations with the choices on offer in the curriculum. Having said that, I have a major concern about the implications of introducing flexibility to the curriculum. I refer in particular to the proposal in the Green Paper to make the taking of a modern foreign language in the 14 to 19 age group, and especially the 14 to 16 age group, voluntary.
	The importance of foreign languages must be apparent to those of us who have worked in multinational companies. We realise the extent to which we, as a nation, are at a disadvantage compared with our colleagues in France, Germany, Italy and countries further afield because of our inability to grasp the basics of a modern foreign language. We are sending out a very perverse message to our European neighbours and to our children if we encourage children to take foreign languages in primary school, but tell them at 14 that languages are an option that can be dismissed. It is the educational equivalent of that Victorian headline, Fog in the channel. Europe cut off. It reinforces the impression that so many people in Europe have of us being an isolated nation rather than one that takes part in the full range of cultural links that are possible if people speak a foreign language.
	It is now possible for schools to disapply the element of the national curriculum that requires children to take a modern foreign language. According to the Green Paper, a third of schools take advantage of that for 5 per cent. of pupils. The opportunity to do that is widened by the Education Bill which, under powers of innovation and autonomy, will allow children to disapply specific parts of the curriculum. We can create space in the curriculum for additional vocational topics without telling pupils that a foreign language is entirely optional.
	I turn now to the quality of vocational education. We need to be clear that we are not shunting low achievers and those who are disaffected or bored into poor-quality vocational education. That message would demonstrate that there was no parity of esteem between vocational and academic subjects.
	In setting the curriculum for vocational GCSEs, we need to make sure that we fully engage local business communities and talk to organisations such as the CBI and the Engineering Employers Federation. Their comments should be reflected in the content of the curriculum, so that employers recognise and accept it, and when they are confronted with students who come from school or college with vocational GCSEs, they will know that the value of those qualifications is equal to that of physics, French, English or maths. They will also know what skills and attainments children have acquired by studying vocational GCSEs. If we fail to achieve that comparability in the minds of employers, we will not meet the aspiration of achieving parity of esteem for vocational and academic GCSEs.
	To achieve employers' acceptance of vocational qualifications, we must ensure that the teaching of the subjects is skilled. The Government talk about choice, diversity and partnership in the provision of vocational education, so I hope that they will take into account the vast number of private companies that already provide good-quality vocational education to people who are in work, and consider the talents that such companies have that can be harnessed in the schools sector. I especially welcome the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that chartered institutes become the providers of some of the vocational qualifications. As a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, I recognise its ability to provide continued professional education both through its membership and district societies, and by employing the services of professional firms and other organisations.
	Organisational issues surround the creation of the 14 to 19 age group. My constituency contains five 11 to 16 schools and one further education college. I am not sure how schools will accommodate what will in effect be three levels of attainment for those in years 10 and 11: foundation GCSEs, higher GCSEs and perhaps hothousing children to AS-levels. Although there is much talk of partnership, organisation and arrangements between schools and FE colleges, I wonder whether bussing children from school to school to meet their entitlement to access to the humanities, modern languages and other subjects is the right approach.
	I wonder whether we are heading back to having three tiers of schooling: primary school, middle school, and secondary schoolwith the sixth form that many people want in their local communitiescovering 14 to 19-year-olds. We might decide that the way to achieve the high-quality vocational education we seek is to stop having schools with specific specialties such as engineering, science or the arts, and instead set up specialist schools simply to provide vocational education, perhaps centred on FE colleges.
	Although I have covered the main points I wanted to make, I have one final comment. Too often in education, we have seen headlines today, but no delivery tomorrow. If we set aspirations for high-quality vocational education for disaffected children within our school system, we must ensure that the Government deliver on their objectives. 6.3 pm

Charlotte Atkins: I welcome the Green Paper. For too long, we expected the one size fits all structure to meet the needs of all pupils; it did not, so pupils often voted with their feet and left after 16. We have that problem in north Staffordshire, where too many young people decide not to stay on post-16. Only three of every four 16 to 18-year-olds were in education at the end of 2000. That record will not ensure that Britain closes the gap between it and its European competitors in the provision of skills.
	I am pleased that the Green Paper is broad enough to tackle high-fliers as well. They often feel constrained by what is on offer in terms of the range of subjects, the ability to take exams early, and the flexibility to enable them, for example, to attend lectures at the local university. Why should they not be able to do so? However, I am not totally convinced about the new tier of achievement at A-levels if it is only so that universities can single out the best pupils. Our universities should look for more than A-level results; they should follow their American counterparts and consider a far broader range of abilities. They should seek evidence that students are doing things other than A-levels and that they have that extra spark, rather than look for more of the same, or the best of the same.
	The problem for high-fliers is that timetables often do not allow them to take the range of subjects that they want to study. For instance, they are often not able to take maths and further maths. We should ensure that high-fliers and others have access to high-quality, vocational courses. That is the way to raise the status of those courses.
	High-fliers who want to take a large number of exams cannot do so because there is only a short time to fit them all inperhaps only three weeks. I hope that the practice of taking exams early will become much more common than it is at present. Some schools refuse to do that.
	Some people see the proposals on language learning as downgrading language skills, because they are not included as core compulsory subjects. I disagree. Trying to motivate 14-year-olds who do not think that languages are for them is like hitting one's head against a brick wall. It is important not to cajole them, but to inspire them by starting much earlier.
	I am delighted about the commitment that by 2012 all primary school children should be entitled to study languages. I would much rather it were sooner, but I realise that we have to build capacity in our primary schools to achieve that. I believe that extending and revitalising the language assistant programme will help, primarily because primary schools will not be teaching grammar, but will enthuse children to develop oral language skills. We should also look to our universities, which have overseas students and language students who could work with pupils in our primary schools. That might not only enthuse pupils, but could also encourage students to take up a teaching career. We could do with them in our primary and secondary schools.
	Many primary schools, especially in the most deprived areas, have breakfast clubs. Why do we not use those to enable children to speak a foreign language once a week? Why not have a French caf where children could ask for their cereal or croissant and use their language skills. We must show that language is fun and has a practical purpose. Kids who do not go abroad for their holidays need to know that speaking a foreign language is a practical skill. I would also welcome summer schools, when a whole day could be spent pretending to be in France using French.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Charlotte Atkins: I am sorry, I shall not give way as other Members want to speak.
	Children at primary school level do not have the inhibitions that older students have when experimenting with languages. Information and communications technology is a great boon to language teaching. Westwood high school in Leek has a fantastic language laboratory, which was paid for by Britannia mutual building society. Students can learn and work independently, and teachers can listen to their efforts without them being aware that their attempts at pronouncing French, German or Spanish are being overheard by the teacher. That is a great way to build students' confidence.
	There is a great shortage of linguists in north Staffordshire, so I am pleased that we will be promoting specialist language colleges, and that there will be 200 by 2005. However, I am concerned because my local schools, which I have been pressing for specialist language status, say that there are hurdles to becoming specialist language schools. Perhaps the Minister will address that problem in his closing remarks.
	I would like a much broader range of languages to be taught, not just the standard German and French. I am surprised that Spanish is not offered more often, given the huge markets in Spanish speaking countries in South and Latin America.
	I was very concerned when I read in Overseas Trade magazine that, in February, ambassadors from Germany, France, Italy and Spain had issued a joint plea for language teaching in England to be improved. Clearly, we must do that. As the German ambassador to London said:
	You are selling in European and global marketsbut you are hardly ever able to speak the languages of your markets.
	That demonstrates that we are missing opportunities to export and build our businesses abroad.
	I was very pleased that the Green Paper drew attention to the work of my local further education college. The collaboration between Leek college and Meadows special school has greatly improved the employment opportunities of young people with learning disabilities. The Honeycomb project offers young people not only craft and vocationally-based opportunities, but social and emotional development opportunities, including hair and beauty, self-presentation, art, use of the college multi-gym and ICT activities. The heart of the project is a furniture recycling and wood manufacturing businesspupils experience a real work environment in which they make a full contribution to the business. Leek college has always had a good reputation for working with young people with special needs. I am delighted that the Green Paper has given that national recognition.
	I welcome the introduction of quality vocational GCSEs and their focus on pupils of all abilities. They have the potential to excite young people, especially those who are turned off by the mainstream curriculum. A large proportion of students do not fit neatly into the route from GCSEs to A-levels or the route from NVQs straight into the workplace. It is important to cater for those students. The principal of Stoke-on-Trent college, Graham Moore, raised with me a valid concern: the difficulty that schools may have in making vocational GCSEs sufficiently practical and in not having equipment available. NVQ students have always had to be assessed in the workplace, which has been increasingly difficult on courses such as construction and catering, as small firms do not have the necessary range and quality of training experience. Vocational GCSEs must not suffer from the same problems.
	Although I accept that the funding gap for students in further education and schools may cause difficulties, it is important that schools work closely with colleges to provide a real range and choice of courses. Students will then be able to exploit the facilities in FE colleges. That is already happening in Leek. Leek college and Leek high school are sharing their skills and facilities to provide the best possible outcome for students in the college and the school. Under the previous Conservative Government, colleges were encouraged to compete and to embrace market forces, which did not help colleges. I am therefore pleased that that approach has been rejected in north Staffordshire. We have developed a concordat whereby all four local colleges work togetherand try not to compete head to headto provide, between them, the courses that are required locally.
	We must also be realistic about how quickly we can get vocational GCSEs off the ground. Of course we want to introduce them quickly, and some will be introduced by September 2002. The major influx of those courses, however, will occur towards 2005. It is important to get them absolutely right and to ensure that more schools are ready to deliver a broader curriculum. Schools and colleges must deliver real choice for their pupils.
	Provision must be for boys and girls. We hear a lot about the under-achievement of boys, but let us not forget that there is still a real gender divide in science and ICT. The situation in chemistry is better, but three times more boys than girls achieved passes at physics A-level in 2000.
	In the crucial ICT sector, where we have such shortages, about 24,000 girls achieved A* to C grades in GCSE computer studies in 2001, compared with 32,000 boys. In the same year, about 4,000 girls achieved an A-level in computer science, compared with 13,000 boys. It is clear that girls are not engaging in ICT in the same numbers as boys. I fear that the expectation persists in some areas that boys will take to computers, and that girls will not.
	The situation in the workplace is even worse. The number of people in ICT jobs has risen by more than 50 per cent., but the proportion of women in those jobs is fallingfrom 25 per cent. in 1995, to 22 per cent. now. Women account for only 8 per cent. of the work force in software engineering. The success of girls in school should not blind us to the gender stereotyping that still persists.
	Huge challenges lie ahead. The Green Paper will address many of them. We have made a huge and beneficial start. 6.16 pm

Chris Grayling: I shall be brief, as there is little time left. The Green Paper contains some good ideas, and some bad ones. That is typical of this Government, but the belief that improvement can be regulated underlies too many elements in the Green Paper.
	The Government must be aware that teachers and head teachers are buried in initiatives already. They complain endlessly about the flow of initiatives. The Green Paper risks adding to the flow of new initiatives, ideas and changes, leading to less stability in our schools, and giving heads and teachers less time to sort out the initiatives with which they are dealing already.
	The Government therefore must be very cautious about how they proceed with these proposals. It is very important that any change adds value to the present system, and does not attempt to turn it upside down, as that would merely make matters still more difficult for the hard-pressed teachers to whom I and my colleagues speak every week. Again and again, they refer us back to the problems that they face with work load, with initiatives, and with the requirements laid on them by central Government.
	I have two points to make about the Green Paper. The first has to do with the proposals for examinations. Much earlier, we heard about the Liberal Democrats' proposals for GCSEs. I am profoundly worried by the Green Paper's proposal that some pupils should abandon GCSEs, for a very straightforward reason.
	The Green Paper refersrightlyto the need to create a vocational route in our education system that is an equally valued pathway. I believe that we will not generate such a pathway by tinkering with our exam systems. Creating a system in which many pupilsprobably the brighter onesdo not take GCSEs but move straight to AS-levels and A-levels would take us back 20 years, to the time when we had a system of O-levels and CSEs.
	In effect, that would lead to the creation of a second-class exam system for pupils perceived to be less able. We must not allow that to happen. From my own childhood, I remember that a stigma was attached to pupils who took CSEs rather than O-levels. The introduction of a single examination system at 16 was a positive step towards removing that divide. I should hate to see that divide restored because of the introduction of a system that allowed some pupils to fast-track into the A-level syllabus and ignore GCSEs. The result would be that a huge question mark would hang over the heads of those who did take GCSEs, and the implication would be that they were second class.
	My second point has to do with sixth forms. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) spoke about the role of sixth form colleges. However, the Government make a virtue of the need for teachers working with pupils in the 11 to 16 age group to prepare those pupils for what they will encounter in the curriculum for 14 to 19-year olds. The danger of fragmentation of education by the removal of sixth forms is very great. It worries me that, despite all the assurances we have heard from Ministers, sixth forms are suffering financially as a result of the transition to LSC funding.
	Schools in my constituency are suffering in that way. Last week my county council in Surrey discussed a scheme to rebalance sixth-form funding. As a result of the LSC formula imposed by the Department, schools are losing out or gaining in a very haphazard fashion. They will, I know, seek the Department's support for the rebalancing of the system and the formulae. I hope that the Department will provide that support.
	The Green Paper contains much to be welcomed, and many aspirations that all Members share. There are pitfalls, however, and the biggest is this: we must not impose on heads and other teachers, or indeed on college lecturers and principals, more change that would turn their lives upside down in the wake of the changes of the past few years. The steps we take must be careful and measured, and must secure the stability of our system rather than destabilising it at what is a very difficult time for schools and colleges throughout the country.

Chris Mole: I applaud the quality of today's debate, and thank the Government for initiating it.
	Life is often difficult for young people between 14 and 19. They experience too many hormonally driven distractions: they have to decide what to wear on a Friday or Saturday night, for instance. We have to square the circle, as a society. As those young people make their decisions, we must decide how to meet the needs and wishes of individual students without making them feel that they have been on a rollercoaster through education and straight into work, while also recognising that we must meet the skill needs of national and local economies.
	My constituency certainly lacks the skills that are needed to support its growing knowledge economy. We have a shortage of both software developers and computer network technicians. That tells us something about the two levels of skill that we need from those emerging from the education and training system. My point is that there must be a balanced approach that respects the needs of the individual while meeting overall needs. I welcome the existence of that balanced approach in the thrust of the Green Paper.
	Too many of our young people are still disengaged from their education. All too often, their parents may have had an unfortunate school experience and may therefore not have the aspirations for their children that we might have for oursand, indeed, for theirs. I commend the focus on drivers for change and the raising of standards in the Green Paper. I particularly welcome its focus on beacon schools, a number of which can be found in my constituency. Such schools provide an incentive for improvement and continuous development, similar to the incentive provided by other mechanisms such as Investors in People and charter marks.
	One issue that is, perhaps, underplayed in the Green Paper is the role of beacon local education authorities. They are mentioned, but to no significant extent. My constituency contains an LEA that provides support for schools. Suffolk county council was identified by the Government as a beacon council for its work in partnership with schools: it was a constructive LEA, working with schools in difficulty. It gained its status because it had a clear vision about support for schools, consistent criteria for the triggering of early intervention, flexible support systems and effective statistical models. By those means it sustained a good family of LEA schools. There were never any grant-maintained schools in the area.
	Much progress has already been made, as the results show. Suffolk has achieved a faster improvement than other counties in terms of the percentage of pupils achieving five or more grades between A* and C. In 1997, 47.4 per cent. achieved such grades; by 1999, that figure had risen to 53.5 per cent. I commend the Labour-led county council's current policy and performance plan, which establishes a target of 60 per cent. during the life of the current council, towards 2005. LEAs can play a positive and essential role in negotiating with schools, and in cajoling and encouraging them to achieve those targets.
	The target of five A* to C GCSEs covers some 50 per cent. of young people's achievement. There is a long statistical tail behind that, and I am glad to see that the Green Paper refers to the number who achieved just one GCSE, and to those who achieved A* to G qualifications. Those targets are equally important. We must also remember the care system targets as set out in the quality protects management action plans, which were developed by social care services and education departments.
	I therefore welcome the intention to raise the value of vocational qualifications and to introduce flexibility into the curriculum. That is the way to re-engage disaffected young people. As others have said, the effective use of work experience has a positive role to play, and in that regard I draw the House's attention to the young people whom I met at a print works in West Flanders, who were experiencing Europe as a potential world of work opportunities.
	As the Green Paper makes clear, mechanisms exist to enable young people to stay on in higher education, and on that point I leave the House with a final thought. When I first entered politics as a councillor in the late 1980s, under a Tory council and a Tory Government, only 28 per cent. of young people in Suffolk stayed on in post-16 education; now, about 70 per cent. stay on. In Ipswich, new sixth-form schools have been built, and partnership sixth-form schools such as Coplestone and Holywells high school have been established. I therefore welcome the broad thrust of the Green Paper, and I hope that the Minister will respond to some of my points.

Mark Francois: I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate. Like many newly elected Members, I have spent some time visiting schools in my constituency. I have visited primary and secondary schools, and some further education colleges in the local area, but my odyssey is by no means complete. By and large, I have been very impressed by what I have seen, but I have also encountered some concerns in my discussions with teachers. I undertook to raise them in the House, if possible, so in the context of the debate I shall attempt to keep my word.
	One concern was pay, especially in relation to housing costs. Obviously, that is a particular problem in London and the south-east, including Essex. There is also the issue of disruption in the classroom, which has been touched on. Suffice it to say that most teachers join the profession to teach children, not to act as police officers. Many teachers want firmer action to be taken against disruptive pupils. Although there have been some recent changes in policy in that regard, most teachers to whom I spoke think that there is further to go.
	The principal issue that I want to discuss on those teachers' behalfit arose time and againis the burden of paperwork. In December 2001 alone, secondary schools received some 510 pages of instructions from the Department for Education and Skills. At a rate of two minutes per page, it would take 17 hours to digest those instructions from the centre. To that must be added the considerable amount of paperwork that individual teachers have to cope with in their own rightnot least in respect of performance-related pay.
	Many teachers have complained to me about what they call the Sunday evening syndrome[Interruption.]which I should like to explain to the Minister if she would pay me just a moment's attention. Teachers have to sit down in the middle of Sunday afternoon and spend hours filling in paperwork, so that they are up straight, as it were, for their return to work on Monday morning. A large proportion of their weekend is given up to bureaucracy simply so that they can go to work on Monday and begin their job as normal. Teachers find that intensely irritating and I would like to think that the Government would be prepared to do something about it. It was best summed up to me by one teacher who said:
	I know how to teach. Why do I need to spend hours filling in forms so that someone I have never met can second guess everything I'm doingjust let me get on with it.
	Too many teachers are leaving the profession and 40 per cent. of final-year students never even make it into the classroom. The point was made to me that it is not just about pay, although that is clearly an issue; and it is not just about discipline, although that is clearly an issue too. Much of the problem is the bureaucracy. It is persuading teachers to leave the profession, taking with them skills that their potential students can ill afford to lose. Teachers in my constituency want to teach. They want less bureaucracy, not more. I promised to make a plea on their behalf, and I hope that I have done that. I just hope that the Minister will listen to it.
	My final point concerns post-16 education and the funding of sixth forms. Essex county council was given several guarantees by Ministers that no school would be worse off as a result of the transition to funding from the learning and skills council. It is my understanding from the county council that because of the complexities and vagaries of the funding formula, when the mathematics are eventually worked out, many schools with sixth forms are materially worse off. In that sense, Ministers have not honoured their commitment. I invite them to reconsider the formula to see whether something can be done. To take Ministers at their word, it may be that they did not realise the implications of what they were doing. Perhaps they could now right that wrong.

John Mann: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for squeezing me into this debate. I have only one point to make. I have a plethora of documents on education, both Government and party political, from the 1940s onwards and I am familiar with them all. But one factor is missing from every single onethe coalfields. The inner cities get a lot of attention and a lot of literature is devoted to them. There is no question that poverty in the inner cities is far greater in reality than poverty in the coalfields. However, what the coalfields have, more than any other area, is a poverty of aspiration and expectation.
	That poverty of expectation was there throughout the last century and it remains to this day. In the mining villages, boys were expected to leave school at 15a bit later it was 16and work down the pit until they retired at 64 or 65, unless they had an accident and faced early retirement. Girls were expected to marry one of the boys and stay at home or, in more enlightened days, work in a textile factory to earn additional money, and then retire. The one thing that was not needed was high educational attainment.
	The big difference between the 1940s, the 1950s and now is the behavioural questions. The behavioural problems in schools nowadays are not the same as those that existed then, because fathers sorted out any problems underground in the pit. The pits, by and large, are not there any more. That is a fact and that is how society now operates.
	The biggest problem that I see in my surgery is literacy. Scores of retired miners cannot fill in the compensation forms for pneumoconiosis because they do not have the necessary literacy skills. Many of them have not sent the forms in yet because they are terrified of getting them wrong. There are queues at the citizens advice bureaux, which are filling in forms for people who cannot spell. That is still a major problem.
	There is another big problem. Those kids all went to the secondary modern schools. In the pit areas, especially our pit areathe Dukeriesold barns on farms are being converted. Old manor houses have sold off land for middle-class housing. In those villages, primary schools are often attaining 100 per cent. in terms of Government standards. At the secondary schools, kids from existing or former pit villages have still got a low level of aspiration and low results. Those factors mesh together and disguise the problem.
	We need three things. First, the Government's biggest achievement has been to start to sort out primary schools. Higher expectation and more money have made the biggest impact in my areafar more impact than any other scheme. Secondly, 14 to 16-year-olds have been lost before, but that is where it really hits homes. People talk about teaching kids French, German or Spanish; in some of the schools, we would like the kids to attend classes in the first place, learning and getting leadership and management skills, which they can use in the world of work. Therefore, I applaud the initiatives.
	The final and crucial thing is that we should not run down what the Government are doing. On capital spending on schools, I will tell the House what I want. Bids are in from my area at the moment; I know that the Minister cannot comment. We have put in for every secondary school in every mining area to be rebuilt. Imagine the impact it would have on the aspirations of young people, their parents and grandparents if it was announced next week that every secondary school in the mining villages would be rebuilt as new. That is what I would call delivery.
	I would welcome such an announcement next week. If we do not get it next week, we will keep pressing. That is what I mean by delivery. That coalfield perspective is crucial. That lack of aspiration and expectation is crucial. I salute this team of Ministers. I believe that they are the first in 50 years to recognise the difference of the coalfields and the importance of aspiration. More of it please. 6.37 pm

Graham Brady: It is a pleasure to respond to what has been an excellent short debate. It is also a pleasureI am sure that the Minister would agreeto have a debate on this important aspect of education. The difficulty has been to fit in all those on both sides of the House who wanted to speak, which has been a pleasure to see. It has been a pleasure to listen to the contributions.
	There have been too many contributions to go through all of them in detail but I will mention a few. The right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) made an excellent speech. She referred to the importance of pre-school education, and the importance of flexibility but not fragmentation in education. She also referred to the almost bewildering choice of qualifications and groups in education, which is an important concern. She was clearly wasted in the Whips Office. We are pleased to hear what she has to say now that she is a free woman again.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) accused the Government of peddling motherhood and apple pieand a bit of creationism as well. He talked about the lessons from Skoda and how the esteem of vocational training can be improved only through quality and not through rebadging, which is a valid point. His speech was not so much a Skoda as a stretch limousine, but we will forgive him that, since we have grown used to it.
	The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment, was worried about the threat to successful sixth forms, a concern that many hon. Members on both sides share. He was concerned that the Learning and Skills Council may pursue the route of levelling down funding, rather than levelling it up, a point that was raised by other hon. Members.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) spoke about the crisis of bureaucracy, the shortage of teachers, and the chronic skills shortage. He spoke about the problems of teaching the same children in a variety of institutions, particularly in rural areas where travel can be a difficulty. He referred to the iniquities of funding which affect hon. Members on both sides of the House and various constituencies in much the same way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) made an important contribution, referring to the importance of special needs and the teaching of reading. He paid a particular and welcome tribute to the work of the Dyslexia Institute.
	The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) voiced concern about the possible fragmentation of the education system and the dangers of a more socially divisive form of education. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) voiced his strong concern about the future of language teaching if the Green Paper proposals were to come into being. He also spoke about the importance of real quality in vocation education and the difficulties caused by bringing in early AS-levels in 11 to 16 schools, something that may be compounded by the uncertainty about the funding arrangements and structures, about which we heard more today from the Under-Secretary.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), in a brief but cogent intervention, said that teachers were already buried under initiatives from the Government and referred to the danger of tinkering with the exam system, as set out in the Green Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) mentioned the burden of paperwork and spoke tellingly of the Sunday evening syndrome that affects teachers in his constituency.
	The Under-Secretary talked about the Bury connection, and went on to say that he hoped there would be no political knockabout in the debate. Unfortunately, I was led to fear for his short-term memory, because he immediately went on to attack the previous Government on the basis of spurious figures that he claimed about education funding, passing over the fact that the last Government spent a higher percentage of the nation's wealth on education than the Labour Administration from 1997 did. He went on to blame the recent widening of the gap between high and low achievement on the previous Government: again skating over the fact that it is happening now under this Government and is not attributable to the Government who went before.
	The Under-Secretary spoke about the group of young people who have been put off education by the content of the curriculum. That is a concern that Members on both sides take seriously and recognise must be dealt with. He spoke about a cycle of failure and about social problems. He also mentioned language teaching and made it clear that schools must offer languages, even if no one takes them. What is the percentage reduction in those taking languages post-14? What in practice will be the effect of what is being set out?
	In response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), the Under-Secretary made it clear that he thought that schools might be statutorily required to offer the teaching of modern languages, but that it might be provided by another institution; schools did not need to offer it within their own institution. Rapidly, this commitmentsuch as it wasis becoming a meaningless pledge.
	If languages are not taught in the institution where the pupil studies but are offered elsewhere, what are the implications for travel costs? How will they be met? What are the implications for disadvantaged pupils, for whom the difficulty may be greater? What are the implications in rural areas, where it may be difficult to move from one institution to another? Is it not less likely that people will take languages in the 14 to 19 period of their education if they have to go elsewhere to do so?
	We heard about modern apprenticeships and the matriculation diploma. We are concerned that the future planning of 14 to 19 education appears to be something of a black hole in the Government's thinking. It is not clear whether the Government wish the area planning of education to be executed by learning and skills councils, local education authorities or some other body. Having said that they are not intending to move funding or planning to the learning and skills councils, the Government must make clear where exactly they want that funding and planning to take place and what the implications will be.
	The Under-Secretary pledged that we would have not necessarily the publication of the responses to the Green Paper but a representative summary of responses. That gave cause for concern to all Members who have experienced the Government's tendency to publish only those pieces of information that appear favourable, and not always an open and honest sample of what they have received. The Government say that they want to raise the status of vocational education, an objective that we all share. However, they seem to want to do so by downgrading the GCSE still further, which gives real cause for concern.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire expressed several concerns on behalf of the further education sector, concerns which grow stronger daily. I know from constituency experience and conversations that I have had how angry people in that sector are, especially at the recent remarks of the Minister for Lifelong Learning. On reflection, she may want to retract those remarks and make it clear that good work is being done in that sector and great achievements are being made.
	My hon. Friend also asked for a definition of a higher education experience, for which he has been waiting for six months. There seems to be no sign of such a definition.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), kindly drew attention to the recent literary work of the former chief inspector of schools and invited us to quote from it. I wish that I had more time to quote those views about the Governmentthe book contains some wonderful quotes. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties are already digging into it. [Interruption.] The Minister for Lifelong Learning says that she has not bothered, but perhaps she should. I offer her this quote:
	The Government should stop flailing around inventing new recruitment wheezes. It should stop wasting public money on what must be a hugely expensive advertising campaign . . . Deal with disruptive children. Cut the paperwork and the distractions. Reform the approach to pay. Action on these fronts would, at very least, ease the current crisis.
	We are grateful to the Under-Secretary for drawing attention to the former chief inspector's comments. They do not necessarily paint a flattering picture of the Government's achievements to date.
	In the Green Paper, there is a huge shift away from the Government's mantra when they first arrived on the scene in 1997, claiming that they were about standards, not structures. The Green Paper presages massive structural change. Its objectives are common to both sides of the House, but there are real fears about the approach. Esteem for vocational education will rise with standards in vocational education. That will not happen if the Government proceed with a policy to allow vocational GCSEs for the less able while early AS-levels are provided for the brightest pupils. Pupils in such circumstancesthose who are most able to cope with the exam overloadwill be spared it. Those who are stretched to cope with GCSEs at 16, AS-levels at 17 and A-levels at 18 will still have to face the overload that currently damages the breadth of their experiences in the curriculum and outside it.
	There is an inherent contradiction in the Government's policy on languages. To say that they want more at primary level, fewer at secondary level and more for adults is absurd. Now that we have had confirmation that languages need not be offered in all schools, the concern is even stronger.
	The Green Paper risks taking us round in circles. We envisage far more bureaucracy and confusion for qualifications and the planning and funding of 14 to 19 education. It does nothing to lift the threat to their future that sixth forms already feel. It risks devaluing vocational qualifications and accelerating the demise of GCSEs. We shall support the Government in seeking better vocational education, parity of esteem for vocational education and greater flexibility. However, I hope that the Minister for School Standards will accept that the debate has flagged up real concerns on both sides of the House about the Government's approach, and I hope that he will take them seriously.

Stephen Timms: We have had an interesting debate. The House has been right to focus its attention on our important proposals for education for those aged 14 to 19. There has been a great deal of progress in education over the past five years, with dramatic improvements in primary schools as the literacy and numeracy strategy has been successful in raising standards.
	This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out in a speech to Demos how we shall apply those lessons to the middle years, for 11 to 14-year-olds, and we are starting to see evidence of improvements. Some 50 per cent. of teenagers achieved five good GCSEs last summer, a year ahead of our target date. In addition, we received a positive assessment, from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Pisa study, of our 15-year-olds. That international comparison was published just before Christmas. Extra investment has also borne fruit in our schools.
	That said, it is certainly the case that many challenges remain. In particular, those challenges come at ages 14 to 19. Too many people drop out of education much too early. In 1998, there were fewer 17-year-olds in education in Britain than in all other OECD countries except Turkey, Mexico and Greece. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) rightly drew attention to our poor performance by comparison with other countries on level 3 qualifications. We must do better, and we will.
	There are other challenges. The Pisa study drew attention to our high overall achievement, but also pointed out that the gap between those who do and do not do well in Britain is a big one in international terms. We need to close that gap and to fire the imaginations of many more of those who lose their enthusiasm for education much too early. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) gave an interesting example from Yarborough school of how that is being done around enterprise. We need more examples of that kind.
	We need to address skills shortages and to raise the skills of those entering the work force in order to boost productivity and promote economic growth. We need to ensure that we meet the needs of those likely to struggle at GCSE while also stretching and challenging those whom we expect to do well at A-level. The Green Paper will allow us to address all those challenges.
	I welcome the consensus about the need for more opportunities for high-quality vocational options, as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has just said. We need to meet demand from young people and employers. We shall offer eight new GCSEs in vocational subjects from September, and several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), said that we shall need additional subjects. I agree with that, and we look forward to offering more subjects from 2004. It is important to make the point that those examinations will be rigorous. They are not a soft option, and they will attract academically able young people. They will develop important skills that employers will prize.
	We cannot realistically offer these new options, however, if we also insist that every pupil does everything that the national curriculum currently requires. That is the reason for a more flexible curriculum at 14 to 16. The core compulsory subjects will be restricted to those essential for progressionmaths, english, science, and information and craft technology.
	Points have been made about modern and foreign languages, particularly by the hon. Member for NorthEast Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) in his characteristically courteous contribution, by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury in her impressive and wide-ranging speech. We fully recognise the importance of modern foreign languages. That is why we propose a statutory entitlement to them for all pupils at 14 to 16. That will mean that those subjects will continue to be available to those who want them.
	We have a poor record of teaching and learning modern foreign languages, and the hon. Member for Fareham told us that one third of schools are currently disapplying the national curriculum requirement. I am not sure whether that is right, but the Green Paper makes it clear that the requirement for MFL is disapplied for about 32,000 pupils, which is a large number. If that is so, why should we pretend that there is an effective compulsory requirement at present? Why require people to go through the cumbersome disapplication procedure if it is in their best interests to do something other than MFL?

Graham Brady: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms: Given the time, I had better press on. I will give way in a moment if I am able, but I started rather late.
	We are committed to tackling the long-standing problems. We do not think that the answer is to force reluctant, uninterested and potentially disruptive 14-year-olds to study languages. However, we do want to get young people interested in learning a language at an early agemy right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) made this pointand to provide them with the opportunity to continue with that interest throughout life. We made that proposal in a pamphlet published on the same day as the Green Paper, which set out our ambition for all primary school children to have an entitlement to study languages within 10 years and for there to be at least 200 specialist language colleges by 2005.
	All that means that young people will have significant choices to make at 14more significant than they would have had to make in the past. I agree with those who have pointed out that we need to ensure that they will have the advice and support to choose wisely, with their parents and teachers.
	We are building up modern apprenticeships, with targets for many more young people to take them up and a national framework that defines the basic standards and will strengthen the relationship between employer and apprentice. Of course, apprenticeships almost entirely disappeared during the 1980s. The fact is that we need to be investing in the skills of young people at the workplace. The system of foundation and advanced modern apprenticeships is allowing us as a nation to do that once again.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said a good deal on that subject and I thank him for the welcome he gave to the vision and to a number of the specific proposals in the Green Paperthe learning plan, for example. He suggested that our proposals for modern apprenticeships were too small scale. I do not think that that is the case. We have set a target of, I think, 28 per cent. of young people going into such apprenticeships by 2004. It is a substantial programme. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to involve employers very closely in the design. We are doing so with the sector skills councils, and as the proposals come to fruition, he will see that the high ambitions that he rightly set out will be met.
	An important point that goes to the heart of the discussion is that we need to switch the focus of attention from what young people achieve by the age of 16 to all that they will achieve by the age of 19, whether they have been at school, in a college or earning a wage. GCSEs at 16 are a staging post in secondary education, not a finishing post. I do not believe that what we are proposing amounts to downgrading GCSEs, as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire suggested, nor do I agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough that they should be downgraded. They are not the end of secondary education, however. That is the importance of the matriculation diploma at age 19 as a target for every young person to aim for throughout their teenage years, signifying recognition for their achievements, whether they have been pursuing academic or vocational options, or a mixture of the two.
	As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in opening the debate, we also want the diploma to recognise wider interestscitizenship, volunteering and wider activities. I am one of those who think that there is some merit in the name matriculation diploma[Interruption.] If we had had to put that to the vote this afternoon, I might have found myself in something of a minority. One reason why I think that it has some merit is that people will be able to matriculate. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire was talking of the benefits of graduation and I agree that there are some benefits. However, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on one matterI think he said that having different levels of the diploma might be unhelpful. I was recently in the United States looking into graduation. I was struck by the fact that it is often at different levels in US high schools. I was at a school where there were three levels.
	This has been an interesting debate and it has been very useful from our point of view in helping us to make decisions on the basis of our proposals. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) made some important points about rural issues. That is why the Green Paper draws attention to the need for pathfinders in rural areas. I was also interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) about the Dyslexia Institute, which is not an organisation with which I am familiar. I would certainly be interested to know more. A number of my hon. Friends also made important and useful points.
	We have set out today our plans for a coherent 14 to 19 phase of education. We want to get away from the fragmentation to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred at the beginning of the debate. This week, I launched at Canary wharf the first of 56
	It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

NOISY NEIGHBOURS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Caplin.]

Bob Russell: I wish to dedicate this debate to the memory of the late Spike Milligan, who was the patron of the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign, predecessor to the Noise Network and a great supporter of the UK Noise Association, which was formed in 1999 as the umbrella organisation for various groups involved in the battle to combat noise. Over the years, Spike attended many events in the Jubilee Room to meet Members of Parliament and highlight noise issues with them. I am told that he had a personal dislike for piped music and noisy neighbours.
	The UK Noise Association, which receives a grant from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, campaignsperhaps too quietly, for I wish it were better knownto reduce noise in our everyday lives and to silence, or at least quieten, the cacophony of noises that disrupt what we would like to think is civilised living. The noise fighters can hardly shout from the roof tops, so I shall speak up for them this evening.
	I also wish to place on record the excellent work of Mrs. Val Weedon, who formed the Noise Network as a result of her experiences with a particularly annoying noisy neighbour and who has subsequently been awarded an MBE for her unstinting work in seeking to reduce and eliminate noise. She is secretary of the UK Noise Association.
	A noise is a noise is a noise. Noise annoys, but it can do more than annoy; it is increasingly causing more and more people considerable distress, ill health and, in some cases, it ends in deaththe victims take their own lives because they cannot put up with things any longer, or they take the law into their own hands and kill the perpetrator. It is estimated that every 10 weeks, on average, someone dies as a result of neighbour-noise conflict.
	The negative impact of noise in society is recognised by the Government, and I welcome the publication late last yearfive days before Christmasof a consultation paper from the air and environmental quality division of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
	Unacceptable noise is not just an urban issue, for I suspect that an early morning crowing cockerel may not be everybody's idea of a welcoming dawn chorus; it is a sound that country folk should accept as being part of rural life, whereas it would not be at all popular in an urban setting. I use that illustration to make the point that what is an unacceptable noise for one person can be perfectly acceptable to another. It is a question of common sense and fairness. Thudding heavy-metal music is unbearable at any timeunless people like it. In my opinion, it is a form of non-physical thuggery for someone to inflict it on others, particularly during the traditional quiet hours of night and Sunday afternoons.
	I understand that the consultation period for DEFRA's proposals entitled Towards a National Ambient Noise Strategy ended on 15 March. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to state when the findings will be published and when he expects new measures to be taken to remove unacceptable noise from our lives. However, although I welcome the consultation paper, I must register my strong disappointment that measures to deal with noisy neighbours are specifically excluded. Having devoted a whole chapter to what is headed Neighbour Noise, its introduction states:
	This consultation paper has as its remit ambient noisenoise from transportation and industryand thus explicitly excludes consideration of neighbour noise.
	If we are being asked to accept that the Government are serious about tackling the problems caused by the growing number of antisocial noisy neighbours, that is clearly a wasted opportunity. I shall return later to what chapter 3 says.
	According to the UK Noise Network, quoting a study by the University of Sheffield, our towns and cities are 10 times noisier than a decade ago. It is said that a fifth of the European Union's residents suffer a noise problem.
	In its publication Noise and Liveability, the UK Noise Association states:
	Noise can be much more than just an irritant. It can damage people's health and education and blight their lives.
	It also states that noise tends to be more of a problem for poor people, who often live in noisy areas and do not have the opportunity to move away.
	Noise comes in so many different waysobvious examples are from road traffic, flight paths and railway lines, but there are many others. Tonight, however, in the limited time available, I shall concentrate only on the noise nuisances caused by neighbourshence the title of my debate.
	I am told that the Government have issued a leaflet entitled Bothered by Noise?, in which they advise residents what action is open to them if they suffer from noisy neighbours. Will the Minister inform me when that leaflet was last updated and where the public can obtain copies?
	I understand that later this year the EU Commission will issue a noise directive. I am not sure whether this has prompted the UK Government to publish their consultation paper, but in any event both moves are welcomed provided, of course, that we see immediate and positive action.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to offer us good newsthat there will be action, and that the Government are determined to reduce noise and where possible eliminate it completely. If the Government could introduce Silence is golden measures, that would be an opportunity for us to give three hearty cheers of approval. Yes, there is a place for noise, such as a standing ovation, which is unlikely tonight, musical delights, such as the last night of the Proms, and spontaneous loud cheering such as I witnessed three times on Saturday when Colchester United beat Queens Park Rangers 3-1.
	Noise has its place, but that place is not transferring noise from one domestic dwelling to another or many others, or to their gardens. As the Prime Minister said on 24 April last year:
	We need an improved local quality of life.
	I am sure that he was not talking about his immediate next door neighbours but was making a generalisation.
	In support of the Prime Minister, I should again like to quote from what the UK Noise Association has told me:
	It is quite simple. Noise blights the quality of life of millions of people. Liveable communities will not be created across the country if the UK remains as noisy as it is today.
	If there is one thing worse than a noisy neighbour it is a neighbour who is deliberately noisysomeone who gets perverted pleasure from inflicting misery on others by deliberate acts of noise aggravation that he or she pursues with callous zeal. This can take the form of loud music at all hours of the day and night, early morning do-it-yourself builders who think that banging and electric drills are all right, binge parties that last for hours, and running up and down carpetless floors and stairs. Unattended barking dogs are also a major cause of concern. There are many other examples of noisy neighbour behaviour. Love thy neighbour as thyself is sadly so often lacking in 21st century Britain.
	It seems that the 24-hour lifestyle that this country is increasingly witnessing has regrettably not seen some active participants realising that they must adapt their behaviour accordingly. What may be acceptable during normal hours is often totally unacceptable to the rest of society in the early hours.
	I am sure that all Members can recount tales of woe and misery raised with them by anguished constituents who are at their wit's end. Examples I have in Colchester include a young man with an electric guitar who slept by day and played his guitar by night, ruining the sleep of the family next door. This ended only after months of distress when the council's environmental noise people confiscated his equipment and he was taken to court. Some may feel that a punch on the nose would have been more effective, but it would be wrong of me to support such direct action.
	Another example is the couple living in an upstairs flat who felt that removing the carpet, as some form of fashion statement I believe, and constantly walking over the bare floorboards in heavy shoes was acceptable. The noise for the elderly lady living below was intolerable and she was forced to leave her home for days at a time to get peace and quiet elsewhere.
	There have been numerous occasions involving loud music at all hours of the day and night, with open windows allowing the high volume sound to annoy the immediate neighbourhood.
	We are told that there are powers to deal with such antisocial elements in society. Are they working? Are they strong enough? How effective are they? Evidence suggests that they are inadequate, and even when the powers-that-be get involved the process is time-consuming and slow. What are the Government going to do about it?
	Mr. Colin Daines, environmental control manager for Colchester borough council tells me:
	Whilst legal controls may be improving, the derisory fines imposed by magistrates for the noise and other environmental offences that we do take to court, do not seem to reflect the seriousness of the problems and the major effects they can have on those who are suffering them. We do try to educate our local JPs but any assistance from 'above' eg via the Home Office would be welcomed.
	Chapter 3 of DEFRA's document says that neighbour noise is not part of the consultation. It outlines a catalogue of measures, which, if they are to be believed, will provide a framework to ensure that England is a green and pleasant land, where at all times neighbour quietly speaks peace unto neighbour, where the only noises to be heard are the twittering of song birds and the joyous laughter of small children playingand over there we can see pigs flying past. The world is not like that, and the consultation paper is wrong to con us into thinking that there is adequate legislationlet alone an enthusiasm from local authorities, the police and other agenciesto deal with noisy neighbours. The theory is fine; the reality is somewhat different.
	In explaining why neighbour noise does not form part of recent noise strategy consultation, the consultation paper states:
	Neighbour and local neighbourhood noise is a major source of disturbance to many people and can have a significant impact on quality of life and the local environment. This chapter summarises the legislation available to local authorities and others to deal with neighbour noise. It outlines the positive actions being taken to provide local authorities and others with effective powers to address complaints about neighbour noise and to raise the general awareness of the impact that the generation of noise can have on others.
	The legislation is clearly not working. Noise complaints are increasing, certainly in my constituency if my postbag and advice bureau are a good guide. The Acts of Parliament that we are told
	provide powers to address neighbourhood noise
	are: the Environmental Protection Act 1990, part III; the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993; the Noise Act 1996; and the Control of Pollution Act 1974, part III. I am advised that a consultation is under way to seek views on whether, and in what way, the Noise Act should be reviewed. There is compelling evidence that something must be done.
	An indication of how seriously noise is regarded as an issue by the Government is reflected in the statement in the DEFRA consultation paper that the Noise Forumyes, there is such a body
	meets twice a year and provides an opportunity for the exchange of information and views between those affected by noise and those who have a responsibility for dealing with it.
	Twice a year? I hope the Minister will agree that meeting twice a year is hardly an acknowledgement that tackling noise is high on the agenda.
	It is not just noisy neighbours, however, who are to blame. The design of buildings, particularly flats and homes in multiple occupation, needs to be addressed. In total, an estimated 2.5 million homes in this country have bad sound insulation. The UK Noise Association published an excellent brochure last Friday week entitled A Sound Solution. I am advised copies have been posted to every MP. It sets out a strategy to minimise noise nuisance in housing by using better sound insulation. I invite the Minister to support the aim of making our nation's homes quieter by design and construction, and that applies to new-build as well as the existing housing stock.
	The National Housing Federation, which represents around 1,400 not-for-profit housing organisations that own or manage about 1.7 million homes in England, tells me that there is a need for all agencies to work together on individual cases to agree enforcement action, to provide support for those at risk and to intervene to help people address their behaviour. It says:
	People displaying noisy and anti-social behaviour can cause a great deal of distress to their neighbours. We support our members taking swift and appropriate enforcement action to deal with proven anti-social behaviour, such as racism, harassment and drug dealing.
	That is fine for housing associations and local authority tenants, but we need to consider all cases of noisy neighbours. It not just tenants who are bad neighbours. Indeed, the two specific constituency cases that I highlighted involved owner-occupiers.
	The future does not sound good. Mr. Richard Mills, secretary general of the National Society for Clean Air, commenting on the Government's draft national ambient noise strategy, said:
	There is a clear opportunity now to develop, for the first time in the UK, a coherent and strategic approach to the control of ambient noise. These proposals simply fail to meet the challenge.
	As things stand, nothing will prevent the noise climate in the UK getting worse for at least another five years, when all momentum will have been lost.
	Ministers promised us a strategy to tackle noise. Sadly, it's all quiet on the policy front.
	It is clear that legislation is not deterring noisy neighbours. It must be improved so that immediate action can be taken. If we can have neighbourhood wardens issuing on-the-spot fines for owners of dogs that foul the pavement and for louts who drop litter, why cannot we have noise wardens with the power to take immediate action against those generating unacceptable levels of noise?
	I invite the Minister to accept the recommendation of the UK Noise Association urging that more resources should be allocated by local authorities to provide a higher quality service with the employment of dedicated noise officers. Current experience throughout the country is that the level of service provided by local councils is variable.
	The Government support the European convention on human rights, article 8 of which establishes the right of respect for
	privacy, family life and home.
	Article 1 of protocol 1 establishes a right
	to the peaceful enjoyment of your possessions and protection of property.
	The human rights of the victims of noisy neighbours are being infringed. The Government have a legal obligation to ensure that legislation is adequate. The Government may not have been entirely silent on the question of noisy neighbours, but they need to do a lot more to tackle one of the great social miseries of modern times.

Elliot Morley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing this debate and on the robust and not too noisy way in which he made his case.
	The hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue and I assure him that the Government take it seriously. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, who was unable to attend the debate, has been actively seeking ways to improve the quality of life for local people. We realise that noisy neighbours are a quality of life issue, and the Government acknowledge that quality of life is an indicator against which we measure our policiesand we do so. That relates to issues such as litter, graffiti, dog fouling and, of course, noisy neighbours.
	I have considerable sympathy with people who endure intrusive noise as a consequence of the inconsiderate actions of their neighbours. The hon. Gentleman gave some examples from his constituentsI have nothing but sympathy for those people.
	Noise is something that affects us all. We all make it in one way or another and many of us suffer because of our different perceptions about certain noisy situations. The hon. Gentleman fairly pointed out that what some people regard as a nuisance, others do not. That can cause difficulty. Despite that, there are clearly situations where noise is wholly unacceptable.
	Our ambient noise strategy relates to an important commitment in the rural White Paper. There will be consultation about what should be included in the strategy and how it will be applied, and we shall take the responses into account. Ambient noise refers to background noise; that is not the same as neighbour noise where there can be great variability. As the hon. Gentleman noted, there is a difference.
	The hon. Gentleman pointed out that there were several Acts relating to noise. They include the Environmental Protection Act 1990, amended by the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993, which contain powers for the investigation of complaints about noise. Local councils have the duty to investigate complaints of noise from premisesland and buildingsvehicles, machinery or equipment in the street. Those duties are described in a popular departmental booklet, Bothered by Noise? There's no need to suffer. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that I can provide him with a copy at the end of the debate. He will then be fully up to date with the Government's position on noise.
	I take the hon. Gentleman's point about proper design standards. We should take into account the need to minimise noise in everyday living. That is a fair point.
	Dealing with noise is the responsibility of local authority environmental health officers. They can serve abatement notices on the person responsible and, in certain cases, the owner of the property. The notice may require that the noise be stopped altogether, or limited in level or to certain times of the day. Specific works may also be stipulated. That should enable the noise nuisance to be abated, and failure to comply with the terms of the noise abatement notice can result in heavy fines.
	In the circumstances, and in the light of recruitment problems, I consider that, overall, environmental health officers do an excellent job in both investigating and taking action against the instigators of noise.
	As constituency MPs, we are all familiar with the problem. We know that in many cases people who are accused of making noise often hotly deny it. That is one of the reasons that evidence must be collected by the environmental health officer. However, that cannot be done overnightit takes some time. Often, people have to fill in log sheets, and devices that record noise are placed in properties. When a matter is disputed, evidence is necessary for a successful prosecution, so there may be delays in dealing with complaints. However, environmental health departments do a good job.
	The noise complaint figures announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment last December show that, almost always, informal action, by directly confronting the person responsible or through the use of mediation, can resolve neighbour disputes without the need for the local authority to use enforcement measures, either through the use of abatement notices or taking action through the courts. Inevitably, of course, the odd local authority is not as responsive as it might be. However, the Government's best value inspection service will help to identify and encourage improvements in services where they are needed.
	I understand that Colchester borough council's environmental health department provides a round- the-clock service to deal with noise complaints, which is good because not all councils do that. In addition, the council has been awarded beacon status for its work in maintaining a quality environment, and it is to be congratulated on that. In fact, Colchester was one of only five councils that applied for that status and were successful, which is a tribute to it.

Bob Russell: It is Liberal Democrat led.

Elliot Morley: I understood that it was a hung council, but I give praise where praise is due.
	I realise, of course, that going round to see one's neighbour does not always produce results. I saw a report concerning an incident in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in which someone was attacked by their neighbour in a noise dispute.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the consultation that is taking place. I accept that the Noise Act 1996, which introduced a night noise offence, has not been entirely successful. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced the outcome of a review of the Act in line with a parliamentary commitment to do so which was made on 20 December 2001. We aim to ensure that local authorities can use the Act fully by seeking changes, which will mean that they will have more control over the level of resources which they need to commit to dealing with noise complaints at night. We are currently looking at ways of making the existing powers less prescriptive and non-adoptive. That would make the night noise offence more widely available for use by local authorities when dealing with night noise complaints. Local authorities will welcome that development. I understand that Colchester borough council, among others, has not yet adopted the Act. That is one of the reasons for our consultation on potential changes.
	We have acknowledged the need to raise awareness of noise by sponsoring the very successful noise action day, which has become an annual event and will be held on Wednesday 22 May this year. That is co-ordinated by the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection, which works with local authorities, schools, mediation groups and citizens advice bureaux to help to educate the public about the problems that can be encountered and the solutions that can be used. It does no harm to draw attention to these issues because people sometimes cause noise nuisance unintentionally, and a little thought and awareness can solve the problem.
	We will soon be announcing the outcome of the three pieces of research that have been mentioned. The purpose of the noise attitudes survey is to ascertain the attitudes of the public to various types of noise as it affects them in their homes and the surrounding neighbourhood. The survey is a follow-up to a similar one carried out in 1991. It utilises two questionnaires and will enable a direct assessment to be made of changes in attitudes.
	A parallel national noise incidence survey is also being carried out to determine the noise climate through measurements. The results of that will be compared to a similar survey conducted in 1990-91 to determine whether there have been major changes to trends in the noise climate. We need to take those issues into account, and they will influence our response. Both those studies represent the largest of their kind undertaken in the UK. Both studies have been extended to cover Scotland and Northern Ireland, and taken together their results will inform the debate about how noise impacts on our communities and how the public respond to it.
	In addition, we have commissioned research to help us to understand how other EU states deal with noise complaints and what effective procedures are used to resolve any noise problems identified. We want to establish what good practice is used which may be applicable in this country.
	The hon. Member for Colchester has raised a serious issue thoughtfully and comprehensively. I hope that my response shows that we as a Government take it seriously and that we are trying to deal with it through a range of actions. Local council environmental health officers, supported by the police, are on the front line. I pay tribute to their thorough work, which is often carried out in difficult circumstances, but is often highly successful. We intend to give them the tools and the powers they need to do that job, and we are consulting on the best means of doing so. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will take into account the points he has made tonight in future considerations.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock.